Mark Andrews: A Tight End with Type 1 Diabetes

This content originally appeared on Beyond Type 1. Republished with permission.

By Katie Doyle

The Baltimore Ravens didn’t choose just any offensive lineup during the 2018 NFL draft – a key part of their strategy is Mark Andrews, a tight end from the University of Oklahoma who has been managing his type 1 diabetes since before he started playing football and into his rookie season.

Beyond Type 1 spoke with Mark about his pre-game rituals, how technology like the Dexcom G6 helps him stay on top of type 1 on long Sunday afternoons, and why it’s important to use his high-profile career to educate and advocate with National Diabetes Awareness month coming up.

How have you managed your diabetes through major life changes, like going away to college, playing a division 1 sport, or going through the NFL draft?

I was diagnosed at 9 years old, and it was the first time I ever saw my dad cry. At that moment, I knew it was serious because it wasn’t something my dad did very often. And since then, my family has been my rock. I was lucky enough to have a dad who was also a doctor and had an understanding of diabetes when I first was diagnosed.

Personally, I wasn’t very nervous. I knew that one day I wanted to move out, play football at a Division 1 level and ultimately play in the NFL. It’s something I was always very diligent about. I wasn’t going to let my nerves or anything else get in the way of that. My mom probably worried most, but my dad was instrumental in instructing my whole family in what to expect and what to know. I rely on them a ton. Using a CGM allows them to be a part of it and know my numbers at all times. It gives them peace of mind to be able to check in on me.

Mark

Image source: Beyond Type 1

How does your family support you from across the country?

My mom will always be my mom, so she still checks on me regularly. Last week, she texted me and said, ‘Hey, I don’t think you have enough complex carbs on board, you’ve been going low and trending low a lot. Just want you to eat something that gives you more complex carbs. I love you, hope you’re having a good week; I’ll talk to you soon!”

It’s awesome to get a text message like that and know my family has my back. After that, I ate a peanut butter and jelly sandwich just to have that background complex carb and went about my day. It’s always good having people look out for you — the more eyes you have on someone with diabetes, the better.

I’ve got a teammate right now named Orlando Brown whose dad had diabetes so he’s incredibly well-informed. He was my college teammate and now he’s my NFL teammate with the Ravens. He’s always wondering what my numbers are, and I actually share my numbers with him from my Dexcom.

When did you feel comfortable enough to talk to your friends and teammates about diabetes?

At first, I remember feeling a little bit reserved and not being totally open about it. I’d go hide in a corner to test. I also remember the first time my friends saw me testing my blood sugar. I was 10 or 11 years old, and they saw blood and thought it was cool. I was kind of in the spotlight because they were so interested in what I was doing.

That opened me up to be more vocal and to share what I’m doing and how I deal with things. After that, I became really comfortable sharing what I deal with having T1D and how I deal with it and sharing with others. I was very open talking to my coaches, and I had my parents to help me out with that, and they still do that to this day. Ever since then, I’ve always wanted to talk about it and shed light on what people with diabetes have to do.

Tell us about your pre-game ritual.

I do something a little bit different: I wear a pump, so I use that for basal (25%) and I use Lantus for my other type of basal (75%) on a normal day. But on a game day, I’ll go 100% Lantus — that allows me to be off the pump for long periods of time but not have to worry.

Knowing your body is key. Knowing what I put in my body and how it will affect me is something that I feel has been instrumental for my health. I’m a big fan of complex carbs; I eat peanut butter and jellies, especially on game days or the day before a game, just allowing myself to have that complex carb to hold me over while I’m exerting a lot of energy.

Having my Dexcom, and the way it allows me to see my blood glucose trends and see what foods react a certain way has been huge for me. There’s a lot that goes into diabetes management, and I think it’s incredible that I can rely on Dexcom and not have to prick my fingers all the time. It really sets me up for success on the field.

Who are your role models?

I didn’t know anyone else with diabetes growing up, but I have my dad, who is extremely knowledgeable and always researching different things. He’s the reason I went to 100% Lantus for game days.

I can remember, at a young age, having diabetes and seeing Jay Cutler in the League, and being able to tell myself that it’s possible. I adopted a mindset that this disease is a part of who I am, but it’s not going to define me and it’s never going to stop me in achieving my dreams. Football is my passion, it’s what I love, but now it’s my job, and diabetes is something I refuse to let affect my job.

You seem like you have a ritual down for games, but how about during the NFL draft? How were you feeling then?

There’s so much work that had been put into that moment, from my mom driving me to soccer practice, to all those hard hours put in on the field, it all lead to that moment of actually playing in the NFL. It was kind of scary to know that that you’re putting your future into someone else’s hands — into 32 organizations’ hands — but this has been my dream for a very, very long time.

Why is it important for young athletes with type 1 to have role models?

To be put on this stage, I’ve always wanted to give back and for me, that’s with diabetes — that hits home for me. Helping kids with diabetes is something that I’ve found has given me the most reward: raising awareness and talking to people about how I use technology and what I do with it, it’s to help people with everyday life and share some of that.

I’m going to work as hard as I can to be the best tight end that I can be, and hopefully one of the premiers tight ends in the League. I want kids to see where I’m at today, like I saw Jay Cutler, and I hope it inspires them to go out there and play sports and be active — to follow their dreams, no matter what they may be. A professional football player? Great! Go out and achieve it. Or if anything else, you know, This guy’s playing football at the highest level, then I can do anything else!

Source: diabetesdaily.com

Semglee, A Low-Cost Basal Insulin, Comes to the US

This content originally appeared on diaTribe. Republished with permission.

By Karena Yan and Joseph Bell

A more affordable alternative to Lantus (insulin glargine) will cost $148 for five pre-filled insulin pens

Mylan and Biocon Biologics announced last month the long-awaited US launch of Semglee, a new insulin aiming to be deemed “biosimilar” to insulin glargine (basal insulin) by the FDA. A biosimilar drug is a biological product that is highly similar in structure and function to a product already approved by the FDA, known as the reference product. Semglee is said to be similar to Sanofi’s basal insulin Lantus; it has the same protein sequence and has a similar glucose-lowering effect. The FDA has yet to classify Semglee as “biosimilar” or “interchangeable” to Lantus due to the need for additional review – so for now, Semglee should be considered a new basal insulin option for people with diabetes. Semglee was previously approved in 45 countries, including Australia, Europe, Japan, and South Korea. We aren’t positive how “interchangeable” will go – would someone using Tresiba or Toujeo “next-generation basal” insulin want to go with Semglee instead? This is unlikely in our view.

Semglee is currently available by prescription in either a pen or a vial and can be used by people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. It costs $147.98 for five 3 mL pre-filled pens or $98.65 for one 10 mL vial. Semglee is reported to be the cheapest available insulin glargine-equivalent on the market, with a 65% discount from the list price of Lantus. That calculation is a bit misleading as does not take into account discounts and rebates available with a variety of insulin brands; actual out-of-pocket costs can differ dramatically for individuals.

Happily for people who don’t qualify for patient assistance programs, Semglee represents a far more affordable option for people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes who take basal insulin. While biosimilars are usually not as inexpensive as “generic” versions of drugs, because biosimilars are more expensive to manufacture, they do provide cheaper alternatives to brand name drugs, in this case, Lantus (and Levemir, Tresiba, and Toujeo). Further, because Semglee is thought to be essentially equivalent to Lantus, it should provide an important and practical option for basal insulin users who are concerned about insulin costs and do not have a route to pay less – this is far more people than often considered.

It’s also key to note that Semglee is not technically considered a “biosimilar” drug – it is currently under FDA review to gain approval of this designation. The biosimilar designation would mean that Semglee officially has bioactivity and clinical efficacy that are not different from Lantus, but are not necessarily exactly the same. If it earns an “interchangeability” designation, pharmacists would be able to substitute Semglee for Lantus without consulting the prescribing healthcare professional. Semglee might also be substituted for Tresiba or Toujeo, two “next generation” more stable basal insulins.

Two biosimilar insulins are currently approved in the US: Basaglar, a basal insulin glargine approved in 2016, and Admelog, a rapid-acting insulin lispro approved in 2018. If Semglee gains an FDA biosimilar designation, it will become the third biosimilar insulin available in the US.

Mylan is offering a co-pay discount card and a patient assistance program to help people afford Semglee. The co-pay card is available to people with commercial health insurance – you may be able to receive up to $75 off each 30-day prescription. Learn more here. For people without prescription insurance coverage, you may be able to get Semglee for free – access the patient assistance program by calling Mylan customer service at (800)796-9526.

Source: diabetesdaily.com

Is Healthcare Provider Knowledge of Diabetes Lacking?

People’s experiences with healthcare providers can vary widely. When it comes to living with diabetes, many people expect that their healthcare providers, even if they’re not specialists, will be at least somewhat knowledgeable about their health condition. Many have found however, that while endocrinologists and diabetes education specialists tend to be more attuned to the ins and outs of diabetes management, even their knowledge can be outdated, while the knowledge of other providers, is sometimes starkly lacking.

Meanwhile, two informal polls in two separate diabetes social media groups, highlighted that over 85% of people with diabetes expect any healthcare provider (even if not a diabetes specialist) to have a basic working understanding of diabetes, at the very least the two major types and general treatment options.

Nevertheless, when the asked to share their own experiences, many reported a lot of confusion and uneducated statements about diabetes from various healthcare providers. The consensus during the crowdsourcing research tended to be “while we expect it, we do not routinely see it.”

We asked people to share some of the comments that they received about diabetes from healthcare providers. Here are some surprising responses and stories to ponder:

“When did you have your insulin pump surgery?”

“Type 1 diabetes develops over 2-3 days, not months.”

“He was a big baby so clearly he’s was a diabetic when he came out.”

“You will kill your child with this low carb nonsense… I will not stand by and watch you do that… I’m sure one of the other doctors will call CPS with this.”

“Diabetics like you are only allowed 4 eggs a week. Period.”

“You should eat more carbs, it’ll stabilize your blood sugars.”

“Do not correct under 13 mmol/L [~234 mg/dL].”

“You need to eat a minimum of 45 g carbs per meal.”

“If you don’t like seeing high fasting blood sugar numbers in the morning, don’t test your blood sugar then.”

“You will likely be dead from diabetes by age 30. If by some miracle you are still alive, you will be blind, on kidney dialysis, and in a wheelchair due to amputations.”

“Are you sure you have type 1?”

“It’s probably best if you stop sports and strenuous exercise.”

“If you go low-carb, you’re going to kill yourself.”

“An A1c below 6.5 is dangerous.”

“You don’t have to bolus for corn or peas, they are freebies.”

“Your insides are destroyed from having diabetes so long.”

One woman shared the following story:

“When my daughter was diagnosed at age 2 (I had diagnosed her and had to fight with her pediatrician to test her blood, because her urine test was normal. We already ate low-carb, so I had to feed her a high-carb meal and take her back and storm the pediatrician’s office and force them to give her a test, which came back at around 500, at which point they finally sent us to the ER). After diagnosis, the endo told us she needed at least 100 g carbs for each meal (at age 2!!!), plus 30–50 g snacks in between meals. Insanity! They had her on massive amounts of Lantus, NPH, and Novolog. They told me to feed her lots of ice cream before bed every night to hold her steady at around 200, which was a great night-time number for a kid that age! I swear I still have PTSD from that whole experience! Nightmare! I had to fight with them every step of the way!”

Such stories amassed very quickly, with many nodding their heads at having similar experiences. Is there perhaps a gap in basic diabetes education, in particular for non-specialists?

Image credit: Haidee Merritt. Republished with permission. Please visit her Etsy store for more original work and gifts. 

Almost all will likely agree – while we cannot expect every healthcare provider to be fully attuned to the latest developments in diabetes diagnostics and treatment, an accurate knowledge of the basics should be a requirement – especially with the high number of diabetes diagnoses, and undiagnosed or misdiagnosed patients.

Moreover, ensuring better understanding of diabetes and its management across the board, for all providers, is highly likely to improve patient outcomes in various situations, including recovery from illness and surgery, and more effective prevention of numerous diabetes-associated complications.

***

What are your thoughts on this issue? Have you ever had a surprising conversation about diabetes with a healthcare provider?

Source: diabetesdaily.com

The Biggest News in Diabetes Technology, Drugs, and Nutrition: Highlights from ADA 2020

This content originally appeared on diaTribe. Republished with permission.

By Eliza Skoler, Jimmy McDermott, Matthew Garza, Divya Gopisetty, Frida Velcani, Emily Fitts, Karena Yan, Joseph Bell, and Rosalind Lucier

The diaTribe team attended the 2020 ADA 80th Scientific Sessions to share several of the greatest highlights from the virtual conference!

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) 80th Scientific Sessions was full of exciting news on advances and studies in diabetes technology, treatments, and nutrition. Click on the links below to learn more!

Diabetes Technology

Diabetes Drugs

Nutrition, Exercise, and Mindset

Access to Care and Policy

Diabetes Technology

The Next Generation of Automated Insulin Delivery Systems for People with Type 1 Diabetes – Updates from Four New Clinical Trials

The first day of ADA featured data on four clinical trials of the newest automated insulin delivery (AID) systems. In what was a packed (virtual) room, the session began with three highly anticipated presentations of studies on Medtronic’s MiniMed 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop System (AHCL). Dr. Bruce Bode, presented the US adult pivotal trial. Here are the main results:

  • Big news – nearly 80% of participants achieved a time in range of more than 70% without an increase in hypoglycemia.
    • On average, AHCL therapy increased time in range to nearly 75% from a baseline of 68.8%.
    • Among adolescents, time in range increased to over 72% from a baseline of 62.4%.
  • AHCL therapy improved average A1C from 7.5% to 7.0%. This is what is sometimes called a “high quality A1C” in the field – hypoglycemia is low, and therefore not contributing to a “better” number.
  • How were these results achieved? Experts said that the lower algorithm target of 100 mg/dl (vs. 120 mg/dl) helped, along with an active insulin time (AIT) setting of 2-3 hours. If you use a pump, check what you have for this setting and talk to your healthcare professional about it to see if you can make changes (regardless of whether your pump can deliver insulin automatically).

Following Dr. Bode, International Diabetes Center’s Dr. Rich Bergenstal shared data from FLAIR, a trial comparing MiniMed 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop (AHCL) with the 670G Hybrid Closed Loop (HCL) in adolescents and youth with type 1 diabetes (ages 14-29). This is the first ever head-to-head comparison of an AID system with a commercially available AID system. The study also had broad entry criteria: at start, 20% of participants were on multiple daily injections of insulin (MDI), 38% were not using CGM, and 25% had a baseline A1C above 8.5%.

  • Time in range over 24 hours increased from 57% at baseline to 63% with the 670G and to 67% with the 780G. Notably, 6% greater time in range totals nearly an hour and a half more time in range per day.
  • Compared to baseline, the number of participants achieving the international time in range consensus target of more than 70% was nearly two times higher with the 670G and almost three times higher with the 780G (22% and 32% of participants, respectively, compared to a baseline of 12%; see slide below).
  • This was the first time that a study measured participants meeting the combined metric of both time in range greater than 70% and time below 54 mg/dL less than 1% (see slide below). This is important since all therapy – and particulary automated insulin delivery – aims to decrease hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia.

Graph

Image source: diaTribe

  • From a baseline average of 7.9%, those on the 670G achieved an average A1C of 7.6%, and those on the 780G had A1Cs that fell to 7.4% on average.
  • Both the 670G and 780G were considered safe when evaluating severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA).
  • Participants satisfaction favored the 780G over the 670G.

Today’s MiniMed 780G data finished with Dr. Martin de Bock’s study, which served as the clinical trial supporting 780G’s CE-Mark submission (and today’s announced approval in Europe). In a study of 59 people (ages 7-80 years, with an average age of 23) who had never used an insulin pump:

  • Average time in range increased to over 70% from 58% (a change of 12.5%) when using the 780G compared to a sensor augmented pump.
  • Overnight time in range increased to 75% from 59% when using the 780G compared to the sensor augmented pump.
  • The improvement in time in range was primarily driven by a 12.1% decrease in time in hyperglycemia (high blood sugar) with the 780G.

It was warming on Twitter to see Dr. de Bock with his three small children while also engaging in Q&A/Chat from their breakfast table. If you’re on social media, follow Dr. De Bock here.

The session concluded with Stanford’s Dr. Bruce Buckingham who presented data on Insulet’s Omnipod 5 Automated Glucose Control System, powered by Horizon. What fantastic data! The study assessed the safety and effectiveness of the fully on-body system over 14 days of use before starting the three-month pivotal study. Interestingly, this study was conducted during the winter holiday season when some of the lowest time in range is observed (typically a three percent drop); the system performed remarkably well in both children and adults, even during this challenging time period.

  • In adults, time in range increased to 73% on the hybrid closed loop system, up from 65.6% using standard therapy – this is the same as nearly two hours more time in range per day.
  • In youth, time in range increased to 70% on the hybrid closed loop system, up from 51% using standard therapy – what an increase, nearly five hours more per day.

These reductions in time in range were mostly driven by a decrease in hyperglycemia. Hypoglycemia was also very low to start. Dr. Buckingham eloquently emphasized, “… this is so important for families and people at night to go to sleep and not worry about hypoglycemia … for a number of kids, they got to go on their first sleepover during this study. It was really decreasing a lot of the burden and a lot of the thinking about diabetes.”

Tandem’s Control-IQ Real-World Data: Time in Range Increases 2.4 Hours Per Day

Tandem presented two posters featuring very positive real-world data from early Control-IQ users. Control-IQ was cleared in December 2019 and officially launched in January 2020.

The first poster, Control-IQ Technology in the Real World: The First 30 daysincluded at least 30 days of pre- and post-Control-IQ data from 1,659 participants. During the first 30-days of Control-IQ use:

  • Time in range increased by 2.4 hours a day (compared to pre-Control-IQ data) to 78%
  • The time in range improvement was driven by a 9.5% decrease in time spent above 180 mg/dl (that’s 2.3 hours less per day in hyperglycemia – wow!).
  • Average glucose levels fell from 161 mg/dL to 148 mg/dL.
  • Glucose management indicator (or GMI, an estimate of A1C) fell from 7.2% to 6.9%.
  • Users spent 96% of time in closed loop!
Teplizumab graph

Image source: diaTribe

The second poster, Glycemic Outcomes for People with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Using Control-IQ Technology: Real-World Data from Early Adopters, looked at 2,896 participants with type 1 diabetes and 144 participants with type 2 diabetes, using at least 14 days of pre- and post-Control-IQ data.

  • Time in range was improved by 2.1 hours per day in the type 1 group to 77%
  • Time in range was improved by 1.4 hours per day in the type 2 group 79%
  • Both groups spent 96% of time in closed loop.

We learned so much at ADA about improving time in range, and we were moved by the power of automated insulin delivery in doing so, since it shows much greater time in range with what sounds like so less work for people and their healthcare teams.

To learn more about Control-IQ, check out the following articles:

A1C vs. Time in Range – Which Should be Used for Children with Diabetes?

A panel discussion of leading experts, moderated by JDRF CEO Dr. Aaron Kowalski, focused on the pros and cons of using A1C and time in range as primary metrics in diabetes care and management for children. As they debated the best marker of glucose management, they attempted to define the ultimate “goal” of diabetes care: is it preventing complications, spending less time in hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia, or improving mental and emotional wellbeing?

Dr. William Winter presented extensive evidence that A1C can predict a person’s risk of developing complications (kidney disease, heart disease, retinopathy, and neuropathy). While lower time in range has been associated with microvascular complications, experts agree that more studies are needed to determine its predictive accuracy for long-term outcomes. Dr. Thomas Danne presented results from the SWEET project that furthered the case for A1C as a measure of population outcomes: setting ambitious targets based on A1C could lead to significant improvements in outcomes for children with type 1 diabetes.

A1C ethnicity

Image source: diaTribe

Experts discussed cases in which A1C can be misleading and time in range may emerge as a more reliable measure of glucose control. Dr. Winter explained that population A1cs differ among racial and ethnic groups, leading to misdiagnosis (for example, African Americans have a higher A1c on average compared to white people). Very importantly, as diaTribe has reported on for many years in Beyond A1C research, A1C also does not demonstrate hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, or glucose variability. According to Dr. Danne, healthcare professionals find CGM reports more helpful in identifying daily highs and lows and in adjusting therapy. This technology allows them to better work alongside families to set individual and measurable goals based on time in range – it is terrific to hear about this continued teamwork.

Messages

Image source: diaTribe

SENCE

Image source: diaTribe

Though Dr. Danne acknowledged the issue of access and affordability, he believes CGM use will continue to increase among children who are tech savvy. Dr. Daniel DeSalvo presented data from the SENCE and CITY to further support use of CGM among children with type 1 diabetes.

CITY

Image source: diaTribe

Young children (two to seven years old) enrolled in the SENCE study saw their hypoglycemia (blood glucose under 70 mg/dL) and time spent over 300 mg/dL reduce by 40 minutes per day – that’s nearly five hours a week. Teens and young adults (ages 14 to 24) in the CITY study saw a 7% increase in time in range, which is almost two more hours per day spent in range – 100 minutes, to be exact!

The Use of CGM in Type 2 Diabetes — Is There Value?

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been a revolutionary tool; it gives people real-time updates on their blood glucose levels that can help to increase time in range (TIR). For most providers in diabetes, the value of CGM is now nearly universally supported (either “real-time” or “professional CGM”) even if all people with diabetes can’t get it. Reimbursement throughout much of the world has reinforced the value of CGM in type 1 diabetes almost everywhere, though the value of CGM for people with type 2 diabetes is still being explored.

CGM

Image source: diaTribe

Dr. Philis-Tsimikas argued for CGM for type 2 diabetes given the technology’s ability to offer remote solutions for care management, provide direct feedback of behavior modification, and allow evidence-based changes to drug therapies. Dr. Philis-Tsimikas shared data from several CGM studies in people with type 2 diabetes on a variety of therapies (basal insulin alone, and oral and other medications), highlighting the improvement in clinical and behavioral outcomes. In what could be the most exciting set of results, people with type 2 diabetes who used real-time CGM (RT-CGM) intermittently for 12 weeks showed an average A1C reduction of 1 percentage point at the end of 12 weeks (compared to a 0.5 percentage point reduction in the blood glucose meter control group). During the 40-week follow up period, A1C was still significantly lower in the RT-CGM group.

Dr. Elbert Huang gave what we felt was a less persuasive view. He argued that in most cases, CGM use is not valuable for people with type 2 diabetes, on the basis of cost. Howerver this is based on outdated data – just yesterday at ADA, there was striking Late-Breaker data presented that showed very meaningful reductions in A1c by Dr. Eden Miller and Dr. Gene Wright (he’ll be speaking at the TCOYD/diaTribe Forum Monday night!) The study showed very meaningful A1C reductions in thousands of people with diabetes – starting A1C was 8.5%, which fell to 7.6% to 7.9% depending on the population. Dr. Huang presented two studies that showed that the cost ratio of CGM was different depending on the assumptions of costs related to the quality and quantity of lives impacted by type 2 diabetes. A QALY, by the way, is a “quality adjusted life year” that measures both quantity and quality (based on disease burden) of life years. We also strongly believe that many people become more engaged in their diabetes management due to a variety of factors that reduce stigma (no fingerstick tests required, etc.) and enable them to focus on how data and technology can work together to improve their results.

Dr. Huang suggests that less costly treatments (such as the use of ACE inhibitors to avoid high blood pressure or to prevent kidney disease) might be better areas of focus and certainly all experts would agree that focus here is important as well. He also mentioned potential negative psychological effects of constantly checking blood glucose readings using CGM and the fact that this technology may only work if it is shared with a person’s healthcare team – we agree integration with healthcare teams where available is a valuable point and also emphasize our learnings from ADA 2020 from many providers that emphasize, as Dr. Diana Isaacs did on Saturday, that CGM enables greater interest in diabetes management by people. While the technology is extremely important, Dr. Huang also expressed that it could be more valuable if the price of CGM declines or if it is shown to improve glucose management while also reducing the need for costly medicines, among other factors – these factors of cost are extremely important. CGM is going down in price on average and global pricing of $109/month is already available from FreeStyle Libre all over the world. While no one should have to pay $3/day on their own, we believe many more health systems are interested in investing more here due to the positive results they are seeing. We’ll be back with more data from the ADA 2020 Scientific Sessions on this and related fronts!

Parent Perspectives on DIY Closed-Loop

An observational study on Loop, a do-it-yourself (DIY) automated insulin delivery system (AID), used focus groups to gather the attitudes and experiences of parents and children using Loop. The study followed people using an AID system, continuous glucose monitor (CGM) readings, and a communications bridge device, called “RileyLink.”

Overall, parents felt that Loop had a positive impact on their family’s lives. They reported the following outcomes:

  • Improvements in emotional health as a result of a greater sense of security and normalcy, increased quality of life, and decreased parental stress.
  • Improvements in other areas of life, including management of children’s diabetes at school, quality of sleep, confidence in caregivers, and children’s ability to explore extracurriculars without supervision.

Dr. Anastasia Albanese-O’Neill presented survey results on what parents expect of school and diabetes camp staff to help their children manage their DIY closed-loop system. School nurses were also surveyed on their opinions regarding DIY. Here are some highlights:

  • 29% of parents expect that school staff will assist children with delivering a bolus.
  • Expectations of diabetes camp staff were lower than school staff – 23% of parents expect school staff to assist with carbohydrate counting and timing of bolus, while only 13% of parents expect diabetes camp staff to do those things.
  • Though 46% of school nurses had never heard of DIY before participating in the survey, 33% of them agreed that school staff should help students using DIY who cannot manage it independently.

This suggests a need for training on DIY and diabetes technology for school and camp staff.

Is Technology the Solution to Hypoglycemia? Dr. Bergenstal and Dr. Wilmot Debate

Dr. Richard Bergenstal from the International Diabetes Center (IDC) emphasized the advantages of using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for reducing episodes of hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) and other health complications in this debate with Dr. Wilmot. Both doctors are highly regarded, and we took this as a big opportunity to learn lots more rather than land only on one size, though it’s certainly hard to avoid saying yes to this question, from diaTribe’s perspective. Dr. Bergenstal eloquently explained that, on average, hypoglycemia is the biggest barrier to optimal blood glucose management, pointing to the fact that A1C levels increase when people fear going low (what he called the “ripple effect of hypoglycemia”). Luckily, with CGM reports, people can finally detect patterns in hypoglycemia and understand exactly how much time they are spending with blood glucose levels under 70 mg/dL in a day.

Evidence shows that closed-loop technology can reduce and even prevent hypoglycemia. In a study of 124 people with diabetes that Dr. Bergenstal shared, the use of automated-insulin delivery systems (AID) completely eliminated hypoglycemia. This was a historic win – previous studies (see slide below) using low glucose suspend systems (LGS) reduced hypoglycemia by 38%, while predictive low glucose suspend systems (PLGS) reduced hypoglycemia by 59%.

ada 1 1

Image source: diaTribe

Dr. Emma Wilmot argued that while these findings are exciting, technology is only part of the solution. Technology does reduce the risk of hypoglycemia, but is not available to all (particularly those from underserved populations) and is not suited to all. She said that unless CGM is also paired with structured education, it will not provide the significant and lasting improvements in hypoglycemia awareness that the diabetes community needs. We know, of course, how important education is – and diaTribe will be coming back to discuss this in an upcoming piece about a new article just published in Diabetes Care earlier this week (Diabetes Sisters’ CEO Anna Norton was a key author in the new consensus report)!

Early CGM use can help kids and predict T1D progression

The use of CGM across different populations – including people of various ages and different stages of type 1 diabetes – shows that CGM can accurately predict the progression of type 1 diabetes for people at risk. For those transitioning from “stage 2” to “stage 3”, continuous monitoring can also help prevent DKA, which many people with type 1 have at diagnosis. While there are no clinical guidelines at the moment for how to manage “stage 2” type 1 diabetes, the TESS study is currently evaluating the benefits of CGM use in this population. “Staging” of type 1 diabetes is fairly new and we will be thinking about this more as we consider how to further improve education about type 1 diabetes.

ada 1 4

Image source: diaTribe

Experts all agreed that earlier use of CGM could result in better diabetes management later on. Dr. Jan Fairchild studied the start and continued use of CGM in a pediatric population with early “stage 3” type 1 diabetes. Kids who started CGM at diagnosis had slightly higher CGM wear at 24 months, compared to kids who started within the first two years of diagnosis (78% vs. 66%, respectively), though this result was not significant. All children using CGM ultimately benefitted – they demonstrated a median A1C of 7.7% at 24 months, which was less than the clinic median A1C of 8.1%. Dr. Fairchild also mentioned the educational role that early CGM use could play, especially with a focus on time in range.

Diabetes Drugs

VERTIS-CV Trial of Steglatro and Heart and Kidney Health

Dr. Samuel Dagogo-Jack and Dr. Christopher Cannon presented highly anticipated results from the VERTIS-CV trial, which studied the effects of Merck/Pfizer’s SGLT-2 inhibitor Steglatro (ertugliflozin) on over 8,000 participants with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD). The trial found that treatment with Steglatro reduced average A1C by 0.5 percentage points, lowered average weight by nearly five pounds, and reduced blood pressure compared to standard diabetes treatment. Steglatro also improved kidney function, as measured by eGFR, and reduced the number of study participants with heart failure.

The researchers agreed that the VERTIS-CV results confirm the current guidance on the use of SGLT-2 inhibitors to prevent and treat heart failure and diabetes-related kidney disease. As a reminder, the current ADA Standards of Care advise using SGLT-2 inhibitors in people with type 2 diabetes for reducing hyperglycemia (high blood sugar), improving blood pressure, and facilitating weight loss. SGLT-2 inhibitors have also been shown to improve heart and kidney health in people with and without diabetes.

Read more about the trial in our full article here.

New Data Shows Teplizumab Delays Diagnosis of Type 1 Diabetes

At last year’s ADA, we were very excited to report on trial results that showed teplizumab (pronounced Tep-pli-ZU-mab!) delayed type 1 diabetes diagnosis by two years, compared to placebo. The study enrolled 76 participants (55 children and 21 adults) who were the relatives of people with type 1 diabetes and did not have diabetes, and were at high risk for developing the condition (they had unstable blood glucose levels and at least two diabetes-related antibodies). On average, time to diagnosis of type 1 diabetes for the teplizumab group was four years, compared to two years with placebo. At the end of the trial, 53% of the teplizumab-treated group did not have type 1 diabetes, compared to 28% of the placebo group.

New follow up data, presented by Dr. Emily Sims (Indiana University), showed sustained reduction in the onset of type 1 diabetes. Previously, teplizumab had been proven to delay clinical onset by only two years in high-risk people; however, these new data support a delay of as much as three years, compared to placebo.

Furthermore, people who were treated with teplizumab showed a “striking reversal” in C-peptide decline (this is a common measure of type 1 diabetes) in the six months following treatment, after which C-peptide levels seemed to stabilize. These data suggest that the treatment helped stabilize beta cell function (the cells in the pancreas that make insulin) and that repeated teplizumab treatment at key time points may be able to further extend, delay, or even prevent diagnosis of type 1 diabetes. While not a cure, three years of living without daily diabetes management is certainly a meaningful outcome.

When will teplizumab become available? With an estimated six-month review time if Priority Review is granted, an FDA decision could be expected as soon as mid-2021.

SGLT-2 Inhibitors and GLP-1 Agonists to Prevent Heart Disease

Dr. Mikhail Kosiborod (University of Missouri-Kansas City) and Dr. Darren McGuire (University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center) debated the use of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists in primary prevention of heart disease (called cardiovascular disease, or CVD).

As background, primary prevention is using medication in people who do not have CVD in order to prevent CVD. This is different from secondary prevention in which a person who is diagnosed with CVD uses a medication to prevent progression of the disease.

Dr. Kosiborod started the session with a strong “yes” – SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists should be used for primary prevention. However, primary prevention is difficult to prove: larger and longer trials are needed. Dr. Kosiborod believes that we do have enough evidence.

  • A meta-analysis of SGLT-2 inhibitor trials suggests that:
    • SGLT-2 therapy works to prevent heart failure regardless of whether a person has established CVD (based on hospitalizations for heart failure).
    • SGLT-2 therapy protects kidney health regardless of whether a person has established CVD.
  • The FDA has approved SGLT-2 inhibitor Farxiga for people with type 2 diabetes and established CVD, and those with risk factors for CVD. That is primary prevention!
  • REWIND showed that GLP-1 agonist Trulicity prevents major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, which includes stroke, heart attack, and cardiovascular death) in people with and without established CVD.
  • The FDA agrees again here – Trulicity is approved for people with type 2 diabetes with CVD and those with risk factors for CVD.
SGLT2

Image source: diaTribe

Next, Dr. Kosiborod looked at the population level. Worldwide, primary prevention with SGLT-2s and GLP-1s will significantly reduce cardiovascular events (compared to secondary prevention alone) because there are many people who are not diagnosed with CVD.

GLP1

Image source: diaTribe

Dr. Kosiborod believes this primary prevention is cost-effective and essential, given the high risk to the population. And many SGLT-2s and GLP-1s will become generic in the future.

Dr. McGuire argued that we are not ready for SGLT-2s and GLP-1s to be used in primary prevention. He pointed to a meta-analysis that showed no benefit of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) outcomes compared to placebo in people without established ASCVD. In his analysis of REWIND, Dr. McGuire pointed to an absolute risk difference of 0.3% in people without established CVD taking Trulicity versus placebo (1.7 events for every 100 patient years, vs. 2.0 events for every 100 patient years). This would mean that you would need to treat 333 people without CVD to prevent one MACE – which would be $3.4 million in drug costs.

Both speakers agreed that SGLT-2 inhibitors have shown strong effects in primary prevention for heart failure and kidney outcomes. There was no significant debate on this point, as the data speak for themselves regarding the profound effect of SGLT-2 treatment in reducing these outcomes.

Weekly Basal Insulin – The Wave of the Future?

New types of insulin – once-weekly basal insulin injections – are being tested in clinical trials and may bring major developments to how people take insulin. In this session, Professor Philip Home, Dr. J. Hans DeVries, and Dr. Stefano Del Prato discussed the pros and cons and recent results from clinical trials of weekly basal insulin.

Prof. Home explained that weekly insulin could reduce hurdles in starting or maintaining insulin therapy for people with diabetes, especially those who are:

  • Afraid of injections
  • Hesitant to start insulin due to the change in lifestyle or impact on quality of life
  • Wary about handling devices
  • Already on a weekly injectable GLP-1 agonist

Weekly insulin could help people adhere to their prescribed therapy – but it will likely make dose titration and adjustments more challenging. One of the major challenges of weekly insulin is that people can’t modify insulin doses according to life disruptions (for example, sick days or increased physical activity).

Summary

Image source: diaTribe

Dr. DeVries and Dr. Del Prato reviewed the various weekly insulins that companies are studying to evaluate their safety and how they affect diabetes outcomes in comparison to existing insulins. Dr. Del Prato highlighted results from a recent study that compared Novo Nordisk’s weekly insulin (icodec) to Glargine U100 (Lantus) in people with type 2 diabetes:

  • Both insulins showed a similar reduction in A1c.
  • Icodec showed improved glucose profiles for self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG).
  • Rates of hypoglycemia were low for both insulins.
  • Weight gain, which is common when starting insulin, was the same for both insulins.
  • Icodec did not show any new safety issues.

Research is still to come on weekly basal insulin, but it looks promising.

Farxiga for Diabetes Prevention? New Analysis of DAPA-HF Trial

Yale’s Dr. Silvio Inzucchi presented an analysis of the landmark DAPA-HF trial, suggesting that along with the heart health benefits of SGLT-2 inhibitor Farxiga, an additional benefit of preventing type 2 diabetes also exists.

As background, DAPA-HF examined the heart health effects of Farxiga (spelled Forxiga in Europe) in people with and without type 2 diabetes. The trial showed that:

  • Farxiga reduced heart-related death or worsening heart failure by 26% compared to placebo (a “nothing” pill).
  • The heart benefits were the same in people with diabetes and without diabetes.

Dr. Inzucchi’s new analysis showed that for participants who did not have type 2 diabetes at the start of the trial, treatment with Farxiga reduced the risk of developing type 2 diabetes by a whopping 32% compared to placebo. After 18 months, 4.9% of the Farxiga group had been diagnosed with diabetes compared to 7.1% of the placebo group. This is a big deal and anyone you know at high risk of type 2 diabetes should learn about these results and talk to their doctor or healthcare team.

We’re glad to see this important benefit – type 2 diabetes prevention – may be conveyed to people with heart failure who can now take Farxiga regardless of whether or not they have type 2 diabetes. As a reminder, Farxiga is the first SGLT-2 inhibitor drug to be approved for a non-diabetes specific population.

Metformin, GLP-1 agonists, and SGLT-2 inhibitors in Type 1 Diabetes

UCSD’s Dr. Jeremy Pettus moderated a session with three expert presenters from across the world: Dr. Irene Hramiak (Western University), Dr. Tina Vilsboll (Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen), and Dr. Chantal Mathieu (University Hospital Gasthuisberg Leuven).

ada 3 1

Image source: diaTribe

Dr. Hramiak kicked things off discussing the current challenges and risks of insulin therapy, including hypoglycemia, weight gain, glucose variability, and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). According to data from the T1D Exchange, average A1C levels have not improved in the last decade, and adolescents continue to be a difficult group for glycemic management, despite increased use of pumps and continuous glucose monitors (CGM). How can adjunctive therapies (added to insulin) help?

The REMOVAL study looked at the effects of metformin in people with type 1 diabetes (40 years of age or older). Over three years, participants taking metformin saw the following benefits compared to those taking a placebo:

ada 3 2

Image source: diaTribe

  • A decrease in A1C of 0.13 percentage points
  • A reduction in insulin dose by 1.2 units
  • No change in the rate of minor or severe hypoglycemia
  • From a baseline body weight of 193 lbs (87.7 kg), a weight loss of 2.6 lbs (1.17 kg)
  • A reduction in LDL (“bad”) cholesterol by 0.13 mmol/L (5 mg/dL)

These data suggest that metformin did not have a clinically meaningful impact on glycemic management but may improve cardiovascular health in adults with type 1 diabetes. That’s disappointing, but something we’ve all wondered for years – now we know!

ada 3 3

Image source: diaTribe

Dr. Vilsboll continued the conversation by discussing GLP-1 agonists for type 1 diabetes. She reminded that adjunctive therapy has several important goals but does not replace insulin – which is the main treatment for people with type 1 diabetes.

Dr. Vilsboll provided an overview of the effect of GLP-1 drugs in the pancreas (on insulin-producing beta cells), liver, brain, kidneys, and other organs before sharing data from a trial on GLP-1agonists in type 1 diabetes.

The LIRA-1 Study evaluated 24 weeks of GLP-1 agonist use in people with type 1 diabetes and excess weight and found that GLP-1 treatment:

  • Did not have a statistically significant (meaningful) reduction in A1C compared to placebo.
  • Reduced body weight by 13.4 lbs (6.1 kg) compared to placebo (from a baseline of about 205 lbs, or 93 kg).
  • Increased gastrointestinal side effects (nausea, diarrhea).
  • Did not decrease the amount of bolus insulin required but reduced basal insulin by about five to six units per day.

The ADJUNCT trial was the longest such trial, involving 1,400 people with type 1 diabetes with an A1C between 7%-10%. In this trial, participants taking GLP-1 agonists experienced:

  • A clinically significant reduction in A1C of 0.54 percentage points compared to a baseline of 8.2% after 52 weeks.
  • A reduction in body weight that correlated with the dose of GLP-1 agonist: 10.8 lbs (4.9 kg) of weight loss with a 1.8 mg dose of GLP-1 agonist; 7.9 lbs (3.6 kg) with a 1.2 mg dose; and 4.9 lbs (2.2 kg) with a 0.6 mg dose.
  • An increased rate of symptomatic hypoglycemia, but no increase in severe hypoglycemia or DKA.
ada 3 4

Image source: diaTribe

In a more recent trial, MAG1C, researchers examined the use of GLP-1 agonist exenatide (Byetta) over 26 weeks in adults with type 1 diabetes. Researchers found that compared to placebo, the GLP-1 agonist did not decrease A1C but did decrease insulin dose and body weight. Researchers concluded that the GLP-1 agonist does not have a future as an add-on treatment to insulin in type 1 diabetes. We are not certain this is the correct answer, because it seems like TIR would’ve been useful to measure – but, there’s no fighting city hall.

The session concluded with Dr. Chantal Mathieu discussing the role of SLGT-2 inhibitors in people with type 1 diabetes. She pointed to three main trials: DEPICT with Farxiga, InTANDEM with Zynquista, and EASE with Jardiance.

Compared to placebo, participants taking Farxiga (either 5mg or 10mg dose) experienced:

  • Approximately a 0.45 percentage point drop in A1C by 24 weeks, and 0.2 to 0.3 percentage point decrease in A1C after 52 weeks.​
  • time in range increase of about 10% – a gain of almost two more hours of time in range per day

ada 3 5

Image source: diaTribe

  • A 10% decrease in both basal and bolus insulin.
  • A decrease in body weight of about 5.5 lbs (2.5 kg) with a 5mg dose, and about 7.7 lbs (3.5 kg) with a 10mg dose (from a baseline of 179 lbs, or 81 kg).
  • An increased risk of genital infection and urinary tract infections.
  • No increase in hypoglycemia.
  • An increased risk of DKA that rises with a larger dose.

The inTandem trial also showed a drop in A1C: after 24 weeks, participants taking Zynquista experienced a 0.5 percentage point drop in A1C compared to those taking placebo. Time in range also increased with Zynquista. There was a 77-minute increase in time in range with the 200 mg dose, and almost a three-hour increase for people taking the 400mg dose. The increased risks of DKA and genital infections were also observed in this trial.

ada 3 6

Image source: diaTribe

The EASE trial provided evidence that supported the effects of SGLT-2 inhibitors on the reduction of A1C – about 0.3-0.4 percentage points after 52 weeks. This study also used a much lower dose of 2.5 mg, which offered an intermediate effect – lowering A1C by about 0.2 percentage points and reducing body weight by 4 lbs (1.8 kg). Interestingly, there was no difference in DKA with the 2.5 mg dose compared to placebo.

Dr. Mathieu concluded by sharing her “bottom line” on the use of SGLT-2 inhibitors in type 1 diabetes and preventing DKA.

ada 3 7

Image source: diaTribe

To learn more about off-label drugs in type 1 diabetes, check out this article from Kerri Sparling.

What Therapies Are Best for People with Type 2 Diabetes at Risk of Heart Disease?

The world of diabetes is now focusing more than ever on preventing diabetes-related health complications. Not only is the treatment of diabetes about blood sugar (measured by A1C or time in range), but it is also about heart health, kidney health, and so much more. In 2019, data from large trials showed that GLP-1 agonists and SGLT-2 inhibitors have heart and kidney protection benefits.

As such, experts strongly emphasized using GLP-1 or SGLT-2 drugs for individuals at high-risk for heart attack, stroke, heart failure, or chronic kidney disease. They also named that GLP-1 and SGLT-2 therapies should become more accessible and affordable to people living with diabetes.

Studies have not yet evaluated the heart and kidney health benefits of metformin, compared to those of GLP-1s and SGLT-2s. However, trials have shown that metformin helps lower blood glucose and body weight, comes with a low risk of hypoglycemia, and is cost-effective.

If your healthcare professional has not brought up additional therapy options for you, we recommend you ask them to read this article and discuss your options.

A Debate on the Use of Sulfonylureas in Type 2 Diabetes

Sulfonylureas, or SUs (drugs like glimepiride, glipizide, gliclazide), are a commonly prescribed low-cost drug for people with type 2 diabetes across the world. At ADA 2020, experts Dr. Sophia Zoungas and Dr. Carol Wysham debated the role of SUs in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. While the two endocrinologists differed on how to interpret data from various studies, we came away from the debate with several important take-aways.

Benefits of SUs:

  • Like many other compounds available today, SUs can help lower A1C, especially at the beginning of use in diabetes management.
  • SUs are low-cost and can be an economical method of managing diabetes, at least in the short term.
  • The CAROLINA study demonstrated that sulfonylurea glimepiride is safe for the heart in people with type 2 diabetes.

Challenges of SUs:

  • The CAROLINA study showed that SUs lead to a greater risk of hypoglycemia than other type 2 diabetes medications (not including insulin).
  • All SUs are associated with weight gain, which itself is associated with cardiovascular disease for many people with diabetes.
  • Not all SUs are created equally – each SU might have different health risks, so more research needs to be done on this front.
  • Preventing long-term complications is possible with GLP-1 agonists and SGLT-2 inhibitors – SUs confers no cardioprotective advantages.
  • Without the cost advantage in the short-term, no one would use SUs.
  • Clinical trial investigators are sometimes discouraged from using SUs in major trials, as we understand it.

If you do use an SU, and have experienced hypoglycemia or weight gain, we encourage you to ask your healthcare professional if there is an alternative. To increase safety, we encourage you to check blood sugar as often as you can (or start using a continuous glucose monitoring device, if you can get access – see here if you are on Medicare) to minimize the risk of hypoglycemia.

The Debate on Metformin and Insulin Use During Pregnancy Continues

Traditionally, healthcare professionals have been advised to use insulin to treat pregnant women who have type 2 diabetes or gestational diabetes (GDM). Now, there is debate about whether metformin or other medications are equally effective alternatives to insulin.

Dr. Denice Feig presented data showing that in pregnant women with GDM, metformin use resulted in less maternal weight gain, less preeclampsia (pregnancy-related high blood pressure), lower birth weight, and less neonatal hypoglycemia (low blood sugar). Additionally, there is no evidence that metformin causes any abnormalities in babies, and the drug may reduce insulin resistance in the fetus. During the first trimester of pregnancy, metformin may be a reasonable alternative, if not a first-line treatment equivalent, to insulin. It is also cheaper, easier to use, and poses less of a risk for hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) than insulin.

While the data are promising, both Dr. Feig and Dr. Linda Barbour pointed out that long-term effects on the baby due to exposure to metformin during pregnancy may include a greater risk of being overweight, developing obesity, and having a higher BMI. Unfortunately, the data did not include pregnant women with type 2 diabetes; an ongoing study, MiTy, is currently studying these effects. Both Dr. Feig and Dr. Barbour emphasized that we need more data to decide the best treatment for pregnant women with diabetes – that may well be, and we also hope that better screening is in the works, so that those at risk of gestational diabetes can learn about it earlier and work with their healthcare teams to live with it successfully, which is eminently possible. Learn more about gestational diabetes in our recent article by Cheryl Alkon.

Nutrition, Exercise, and Mindset

New Physical Activity Recommendations for Adults and Children

Dr. Katrina Piercy and Dr. Ronald Sigal presented the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, with updates to the age-specific guidelines and evidence of even more health benefits. These are the recommendations for each age group:

  • Children ages 3-5 should be physically active throughout the day to support their growth, development, and motor skills. Though the US guidelines do not include a specific amount of time, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada recommend three hours per day.
  • Children ages 6-17 should do at least 60 minutes a day of moderate or vigorous physical activity.
  • Adults (under age 55) should do at least 150 minutes (2.5 hours) to 300 minutes (5 hours) each week of moderate-intensity activity, or 75 minutes (1 hour and 15 minutes) to 150 minutes (2.5 hours) each week of vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity. Adults should also do muscle-strengthening activities at least twice a week. We were slightly surprised not to see adults urged to exercise every day like former head of CMS/FDA Dr. David Kessler does in his recent acclaimed book, Fast Carbs, Slow Carbs.
  • Older adults (above age 55) should do the recommended aerobic and muscle-strengthening activities for adults. They should also incorporate balance and functional training, such as standing on one foot or ballroom dancing.

ada 1 2

Image source: diaTribe

How do you determine the intensity of exercise? Dr. Piercy recommends the “talk test”: someone doing moderate-intensity aerobic activity can talk, but not sing, during the activity, while a person doing vigorous-intensity activity cannot say more than a few words without pausing for breath.

The speakers noted that while the most health benefits come with at least 150-300 minutes of moderate physical activity per week, any activity is beneficial: any time spent sitting that is swapped out for exercise (even light activity,) can lead to short-term and long-term health benefits. Read more about the guidelines here.

ada 1 3

Image source: diaTribe

Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) 2020 Consensus Report Recommendations

A group of educators made a strong case for the greater use of diabetes self-management education and support (DSMES). The benefits are many, including improvements in clinical, behavioral, and psychosocial outcomes, and greater diabetes knowledge and self-care behaviors. Dr. Margaret Powers stressed that compared to other treatments prescribed by healthcare professionals, DSMES and medical nutrition therapy produce few to no negative side effects for people with diabetes and are low cost.

ada 3 9

Image source: diaTribe

The experts discussed low DSMES participation rates across the nation and the factors that reduce referrals to diabetes education. Evidence shows that less than 5% of people newly diagnosed with diabetes who have Medicare insurance, and 6.8% of privately insured people with diabetes, have used DSMES services. The 2020 DSMES Consensus Report was created to address these concerns by outlining steps healthcare professionals can take to help people access DSMES services. The report recommends that healthcare professionals make referrals and encourage participation in DSMES at four critical times in someone’s diabetes journey: (1) diagnosis, (2) annually or when not meeting treatment targets, (3) when complicating factors develop, and (4) when transitions in life and care occur. It also suggests that awareness of, and access to, DSMES must be expanded (culturally and geographically), and financial support should be provided for use of DSMES services.

ada 3 10(

Image source: diaTribe

ada 3 11

Image source: diaTribe

Food as Medicine! Geisinger’s Fresh Food Farmacy

Michelle Passaretti (Geisinger Health System) presented data on the success of the Fresh Food Farmacy initiative. Fresh Food Farmacy was developed to meet the health needs of people with diabetes in Pennsylvania who do not have access to healthy foods (also known as being food insecure). diaTribe interviewed two leaders from Geisinger in 2018, Dr. Andrea Feinberg and Allison Hess; now, Fresh Food Farmacy has provided 482,219 total meals.

The data speaks to the power of food as medicine! The program participants had a:

  • 2 percentage point reduction in A1C from a baseline of 9%
  • 27% reduction in fasting glucose
  • 13% reduction in cholesterol (including a 9.9% reduction in “bad” LDL cholesterol)
  • 15% reduction in triglycerides

Fresh Food Farmacy also led to increased use of preventive care: flu shots increased by 23%, annual eye exams increased by 17%, and annual foot exams increased by 33%.

Compared to eligible individuals who did not participate, Fresh Food Farmacy participants saw:

  • 49% lower hospital admissions rates
  • 13% decrease in emergency department visits
  • 27% more primary care visits
  • 14% more endocrinologist visits

Participant surveys show significant improvements in quality of life, with 31% of people in the program rating their overall health as very good, compared to just 6% before participation. Additionally, 44% of Fresh Food Farmacy participants now rate their emotional and mental health as very good, compared to just 9% before the program. Passaretti emphasized that Fresh Food Farmacy is not a diet, but a lifestyle change, and that support for the individual’s entire household is necessary for success.

A Sneak Peek into the Film Blood Sugar Rising

Blood Sugar Rising is a film that powerfully articulates the need for a war on diabetes. During this panel moderated by our own Kelly Close, we heard from ADA CEO Tracey Brown, Rise and Root urban farmer Karen Washington, social media influencer and film star Nicole Egerer, film director David Alvarado, and incoming ADA Chief Scientific & Medical Officer Dr. Robert Gabbay.

day 2 3

Image source: diaTribe

Many myths exist in diabetes. One is that if you get diabetes, it is your fault. Blood Sugar Rising dismantles some of these false narratives by showing the complexity of the disease and amplifying diverse voices of people in the diabetes community. Watch the film here if you are in the US and here if you are outside the US.

Tracey Brown ended with a powerful call to action: “What will we do when the burning bush stops burning? We need to move from words into action. We get one point for saying and nine points for doing. Each of us can use our voice, our monetary power, and our ears, and reach across the aisle to collaborate. This is what we need to do to bring diabetes down. We can make it happen, but only together. I’m full up of hope and courage that tomorrow is going to be better than today.”

Lifestyle Interventions for Type 2 Diabetes Remission

In a fascinating session on type 2 diabetes remission, several leaders in the field introduced data on how specific lifestyle interventions (diet and exercise) may help put type 2 diabetes into remission.

Alison Barnes presented data from the DiRECT trial, which focused on low-calorie diets (LCD). The trial compared an intervention group on an LCD (between 800-900 calories per day) to a control group receiving typical diabetes care. Remission was defined as achieving an A1C below 6.5% and stopping all diabetes medications. Results from the DiRECT trial were promising:

  • At one year: 4% remission in control group and 46% remission in the intervention group.
  • At two years: 3% remission in control group and 36% remission in the intervention group.
  • 64% of participants who lost more than 22 lbs (10 kg) were in remission at two years.
  • The intervention group dropped from 75% of participants on diabetes medications at baseline to 40% at two years (compared to 77% at baseline and up to 84% in the control group).
  • Average A1C decreased by 0.6 percentage points in the intervention group at 2 years.
ada 3 8

Image source: diaTribe

We thoroughly recommend Dr. Roy Taylor’s book Life Without Diabetes: The Definitive Guide to Understanding and Reversing Type 2 Diabetes – he provides a major connection to the DiRECT trial.

Next Dr. William Yancy spoke on low-carbohydrate diets (classified as less than 130 g carbs per day, with no overall calorie restrictions). In an analysis that compared the effects of nine different diets on glycemic outcomes in type 2 diabetes, the low-carb diet was ranked as the most effective dietary approach for lowering A1C.

Finally, Dr. Kristian Karstoft presented the U-TURN study on how exercise alone, or exercise and diet, may play a role in type 2 diabetes remission. U-TURN had two groups, one receiving standard care and one receiving intensive lifestyle intervention, which included diet and exercise components.

  • After 12 months, 37% of participants in the intervention group stopped using glucose-lowering medication and maintained glucose levels below the criteria for type 2 diabetes (effectively achieving remission).
  • Of the participants who achieved remission, the majority of them came from the group that consistently exercised the most.

The Need for a Personalized Approach to Obesity Treatment

Experts shared the latest data on different treatments for obesity. They focused on three approaches:

1. Lifestyle interventions:

  • The Look AHEAD trial tested whether reducing calories and exercising regularly would lead to diabetes remission. After one year, 11.5% of participants achieved diabetes remission with an average weight loss of 19 pounds (8.6 kilos). After four years, 7.3% of participants were able to maintain remission with an average weight loss of 10 pounds (4.5 kilograms).
  • The Diabetes Remission Clinical Trial (DiRECT) tested whether calorie restriction alone had an effect on diabetes remission. After one year, 46% of people in this study with type 2 diabetes achieved remission; after two years, 70% of the people who had achieved remission were able to maintain remission.

Participants in Look AHEAD had more advanced diabetes than in DiRECT, leading to the big difference in remission rates. The speakers emphasized that the longer someone has been diagnosed with diabetes, the harder it is to achieve diabetes remission.

2. Obesity medication:

  • Just 2% of people living with obesity are managing the disease with medication. However, many obesity medications can lead to weight loss, prevention of diabetes, and diabetes remission.
  • Combination therapy has shown success for managing obesity and type 2 diabetes. A study testing tirzepatide (a dual GLP-1 and GIP receptor agonist) in people with type 2 diabetes found a 1.7-2% decrease in A1C and an average weight loss of 12 pounds in just 12 weeks.

3. Bariatric surgery:

  • Experts agreed that bariatric surgery should be considered as a treatment option for people with a BMI greater than 35. Bariatric surgery can also lead to sustained weight loss and a decrease in diseases associated with obesity, including sleep apnea and heart disease.
  • It’s clear that obesity treatments must be determined at individual levels – we know that so much more is possible for people with diabetes to reach healthier weights and will be returning to this topic. In the meantime, if changing your weight is of interest, talk to your doctor about how to do this in the best way for you.

How Might Type 1 Diabetes Affect the Gut Microbiome? How Can We Use the Gut Microbiome to Treat Type 1 Diabetes?

Though the science is not yet conclusive, research continues on the relationship between the gut microbiome (made up of all the bacteria that live in the human digestive tract) and type 1 diabetes autoimmunity. Dr. Eric Triplett reviewed studies of the gut microbiome in babies with high genetic risk for type 1 diabetes. Three of the studies (DIPP, Babydiet, and DIABIMMUNE) showed an association between the species of bacteria living in the gut and the onset of type 1 diabetes. He then presented a study using data from the general population in Sweden (ABIS), which compared the gut microbiome of children with low, neutral, or high genetic risk for type 1 diabetes. The study found that high genetic risk for type 1 diabetes is associated with changes in the gut microbiome early in life.

Dr. Emma Hamilton-Williams shared unpublished research on the effect of high-fiber dietary supplements on gut microbiome composition and diabetes management in 18 adults with type 1 diabetes. Fibrous food breaks down into short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) when digested. SCFAs are known to support gut health and regulate the immune system. The study found that the high-fiber supplements affected the species of bacteria living in the gut as well as their function (though these returned to baseline after the diet ended). Participants with better-managed diabetes at baseline had a stronger response to the dietary change – and experienced changes in their glycemic management: A1C levels decreased and less daily insulin was required. Further research on short-chain fatty acid supplements could shed lead on diabetes treatment and prevention.

Real World Stories: Supporting People at Different Stages of Diabetes

Dr. Neesha Ramchandani presented her work on young adults living with diabetes (ages 18 to 30). Through interviews, she found four main challenges: finding a balance between diabetes and life, feeling in control of diabetes, navigating the hidden burden of diabetes within their social circles, and wanting a better connection with their diabetes healthcare professional. One participant said, “Diabetes is like having a full-time job… you can’t 100% turn off. It always has to be a part of your thought process.” diaTribe has resources for teens here.

We then heard from Dr. Della Connor and Dr. Gary Rothenberg on the need to care for people who are living with diabetes post-kidney transplants and post-amputations. In all three talks, the experts emphasized the need to:

  • Build trust and comfort between people with diabetes and healthcare professionals.
  • Incorporate perspectives based on gender, race, and ethnicity into care.
  • Recognize the importance of a team approach, including care-partners.

Access to Care and Policy 

Soda Taxes: Are They Working?

Dr. Lisa Powell (University of Illinois at Chicago) presented compelling evidence in support of sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes and their ability to reduce soda consumption. Evidence suggests that taxes do reduce the consumption of sugary beverages – a 38 percent reduction in Philadelphia, PA and 21 percent reduction in Seattle, WA, for example – and incentivize soda companies to decrease the amount of sugar in their products, especially when the tax is dependent on the drink’s sugar content. Research also shows that while some consumers replace sodas and sugary drinks with other forms of sugar, such as candy or chocolate milk, the most common substitute is water.

day 2 1

Image source: diaTribe

Dr. Martin White (University of Cambridge) and Dr. Rafael Meza (University of Michigan) presented promising data on how SSB taxes are working in the United Kingdom and Mexico, respectively. UK consumers overall have been switching to drinks with less sugar and most companies have been reducing levels of sugar in their products; however, taxes have not had a dramatic negative impact on the sugary beverages industry’s revenues overall. Similarly, Dr. Meza showed that Mexico’s overall sugar consumption has decreased since the implementation of the SSB tax, having the largest influence on people who drink lots of sugary drinks, and he noted that the current tax, which is about 10% of the beverage price, would have a significantly larger impact if doubled.

Dr. Powell pointed out that the most effective taxes require careful design. To significantly curb consumption of sodas, the SSB tax should be added into the shelf price, rather than applied at the register, and the tax ought to apply to a broad base of sugary-drinks (including sodas, juices, sports drinks, etc.) to avoid substitutions. Moreover, researchers must be mindful of cross-border shopping – this is when consumers purchase their beverages in places where the SSB tax doesn’t apply. This tax avoidance can heavily impact the effectiveness of the tax: for example, in Philadelphia, PA, consumers buying SSBs outside of Philly reduced the the impact of the tax from a 51% reduction in SSB sales to a 38% reduction.

Effects of Health Policy on Diabetes Care

Professor Rebecca Myerson (from the University of Wisconsin) shared key findings of a study on the impact of Medicaid expansion for people with diabetes:

  • Medicaid prescriptions for insulin increased by about 40%, even with rising insulin prices, meaning that more people with diabetes are receiving treatment.
  • Prescriptions for metformin also increased, suggesting that more people are getting treatment for early-stage diabetes.
  • About one-third of the other prescriptions are for newer medicines (such as SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists) – promising trends for preventing diabetes complications and saving significant costs down the road.

Dr. Kasia Lipska from Yale School of Medicine discussed the importance of coverage for essential medicines and pre-existing conditions – two health policy issues that are front of mind for many Americans as the November election approaches. In addition to Medicaid expansion, the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or Obamacare) provided coverage for “Essential Health Benefits,” which includes prescription drugs, mental health services, emergency services and hospital care, preventive services and chronic disease management, and more. Dr. Lipska shared a study that found the ACA reduced the percent of income spent on family medical costs for people ages 18-64 with diabetes. This reduction was especially true for people whose family income was in the lowest bracket ($0-34,999 per year).

Income

Image source: diaTribe

Importantly, ACA also prohibited health insurance companies from denying people coverage or charging higher costs to people who have “pre-existing conditions,” including diabetes. Given the significant improvements in coverage and care, Dr. Lipska emphasized that getting rid of the pre-existing conditions provisions would be “a disaster for people with diabetes” – presumably diaTribe readers in the US would agree! Over half of those surveyed were in favor of expanding Medicaid programs in their state – this doesn’t surprise us, since there are so many states that do not have favorable diabetes care programs (for example, see our article on CGM coverage for people on Medicaid; although this was not part of the ACA, many cite it as helping improve care quickly for those that are able to access the benefit). She shared results of a Kaiser Family Foundation survey that emphasized the need for ACA provisions:

ACA

Image source: diaTribe

Whole-Population Interventions Aim to Prevent Type 2 Diabetes

As type 2 diabetes rises in the United States (and around the world), organizations are working to prevent new cases and improve the health and wellness of entire communities. Simon Neuwahl (RTI International) showed models of the benefits of proposed changes, which includied soda taxes, worksite health promotion, and bike lanes. The models suggest that the introduction of these three societal reforms can reduce the rate of type 2 diabetes by 17% over the next ten years. In 2018, 1.4 million people were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in the, US so a 17% decrease would prevent 2.4 million cases over ten years.

There is still a long way to go. The CDC is aiming for the rate of type 2 diabetes to drop by 21% by 2025. The efficacy of some reforms, like the soda tax, are well proven. But, experts like Professor Nicholas Wareham (University of Cambridge, England) believe that no single intervention can make a difference. Decreasing rates of type 2 diabetes will require societal and individual lifestyle reforms.

Thankfully, diverse groups recognize the need for holistic approaches to diabetes prevention. The CDC’s National Diabetes Prevention Program coordinates with both public and private organizations to connect people with diabetes or prediabetes to lifestyle change resources and programs. Neuwahl’s cost-effective model is adaptable to national, state, and local communities hoping to implement whole-population interventions. Together, his three proposed population-level reforms could directly improve the lives of 2.4 million people.

Source: diabetesdaily.com

How to Safely Transition to Multiple Daily Injections (MDI)

As the reality of living during a pandemic slowly starts to sink in, people are changing their expectations for what 2020 (and beyond!) looks like. Some people have delayed their weddings, or put plans for a baby on hold, and many people have lost their jobs.

In the US, where health insurance is so intimately tied to employment, which also, unfortunately, means that many people are currently without health insurance and are quickly searching for a plan that will work for them. This is infinitely more complicated when you’re living with diabetes, as health insurance is even more essential for your health and well-being, but this can also cause problems.

Coverage for diabetes supplies varies by insurance carrier. For example, many Medicaid programs across the United States do not have an adult CGM benefit, and some health insurance plans on the federal and state health exchanges will not cover the type of insulin pump you need and are used to. These transitions have many people considering a switch to MDI, or multiple daily injections. Here’s how to transition safely, if this is you.

Reasons for Switching to MDI

People may switch from their insulin pump back to multiple daily injections for any number of reasons, but some may include:

  • Needing a mental health or “tech” break
  • Diabetes burnout 
  • Not wanting pump sites and tubing during the summertime (when lots of heat, humidity, pool, and beach time can cause many headaches with sites coming out more frequently)
  • Losing health insurance, and new insurance doesn’t cover your preferred pump
  • Saving money (a 2019 study found that annual costs are ~$4,000 higher for pump therapy than for MDI therapy: $12,928 vs. $9,005, respectively)
  • Experiencing frequent pump and/or cannula malfunctions
  • Experiencing sensitive skin and adhesive issues at your pump site
  • Absorption issues with insulin pump therapy

Some people switch pretty frequently between insulin pump therapy and daily shots, while others stay strictly in one camp or the other for years, and only switch when they absolutely have to. Remember that you don’t have to justify your reasons to anyone.

Talk to Your Doctor

Once you’ve decided to switch back to MDI, you should contact your primary care physician or endocrinologist (or any other provider who you regularly see for diabetes care). They can help you develop a plan to convert your basal (pump) settings to a long acting insulin injection (Lantus, Levemir, and Tresiba are common brands). Additionally, they can help you navigate the transition for bolus doses, as well as help you figure out your insulin sensitivity and correction factors.

Stock Up on Supplies

Once you’ve spoken to your doctor (and have gotten some prescriptions for long-acting insulin), it’s time to stock up on supplies. You’ll need both short and long-acting insulins (for bolus and basal insulin replacements), syringes or pen needles, and alcohol swabs. It’s helpful to have plenty of low snacks, like juice and glucose tablets, on hand as well. A silver lining of MDI is that there are way fewer supplies you’ll need, and they cost less money.

Buckle Up for the Roller Coaster

Switching back to MDI after using an insulin pump will not be without issues. You may experience both more frequent high and low blood sugars as you navigate the transition, and figure out both how much and how frequent you need to dose insulin. Don’t be surprised if you find that you need much more insulin on injections than you needed on a pump (or vice versa). Everyone is different, and having a little patience (and plenty of low snacks handy) can go a long way.

Listen to Your Heart

It’s important to remember that people living with diabetes can have excellent control whether or not they use an insulin pump. Multiple daily injections is a form of diabetes therapy that works wonderfully for millions of people. That being said, you may have family or friends who will try and change your mind about switching back to MDI. Be let’s be clear: if you need a pump break (for ANY reason), listen to your heart. Don’t let people talk you out of it. Diabetes is for the long-haul, and sometimes taking a break (or going back to insulin injections permanently) is just what can be needed to achieve better physical and emotional health.

You Can Always Change Your Mind

Made the switch to MDI, and can’t stand it after 2 weeks? Remember, your diabetes management is just that, yours! No one will judge you if you are ready to go back on insulin pump therapy sooner than you anticipated. You are allowed to change your mind as many times as necessary to find the best therapy that will fit your lifestyle and meet your needs most effectively.

Have you made the switch to multiple daily injections from insulin pump therapy recently? How was your experience? Any advice to share? Please share your story below; we love hearing from our readers!

Source: diabetesdaily.com

Diabetes Deadliest Mistakes

Whether you are living with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, you likely take medication that helps keep you alive and functioning properly. We continually measure, count and remind ourselves to take our medication and/or insulin very meticulously to ensure we are taking the proper medication and correct doses.

But we are human, and mistakes do occur. Sometimes these mistakes can be deadly.

Recently, while mid-conversation, I managed to take 18 units of Fiasp instead of my long-lasting insulin, Tresiba. This has happened to me one time before when I was first diagnosed when I took 16 units of Humalog instead of Lantus. My endocrinologist sent me right to the hospital because at the time I was new, nervous and unable to handle it on my own. This time, the moment I released the needle from my skin my stomach dropped to my feet.

Fiasp is even faster-acting than Humalog and I knew I had minutes to ingest a whole lot of carbs to counteract the large amount of insulin I had just taken.

I managed to inhale over 200 g of carbs in 20 minutes in the midst of a mild panic attack. I was nauseous, jittery and scared for what lay ahead. The day wound up being a series of lows but I was lucky I came out of it unscathed. Had I not realized I took the wrong insulin I could have easily passed out, had a seizure or died. My original plan for the day was to kick it off with a walk to a nearby shopping center so had I not realized, my blood sugars could have plummeted and I could have been left for dead on the side of the road.

I got lucky. We all have gotten lucky. Some have not. Many of us, unfortunately, know people who have lost their lives due to a diabetes mistake; and yes, sometimes their own.

I asked our friends in the diabetes online community what their biggest and deadliest diabetes mistakes were and this is what they had to say.

“I forgot a snack after breastfeeding and had my first hypoglycemic seizure. The first reading they could get was 27.”

“I am a type 2 diabetic and sometimes get shaky and I know I need a snack. I grabbed a brownie as I left my house but I wasn’t feeling any better. I realized that I grabbed a low-carb brownie so it wasn’t going to help raise my blood sugar! I wound up having to stop for a soda.”

“I’ve mixed up my insulin before. 27 units of Humalog is much different than 27 units of Levemir!”

“In my last year before I quit drinking, there were 2 distinct times I can remember where I was so low and so drunk I couldn’t figure out how to get food to save my life. One time I had my friend help me. The other time I went back to sleep and miraculously woke up the next morning.”

“I took some expired test strips from someone in the diabetes online community. For days I kept reading really high and couldn’t understand why. Finally, I rage bolused and took a hefty correction dose. I started seeing spots and beads of sweat formulated all over my entire body. My reading was 28. Turns out those test strips were bad and I could have killed myself trying to save a couple of bucks.”

“I forgot to check my blood before I had breakfast and had a banana and shot up to 500!”

“I recently bolused for a snack twice. I was low in the middle of the night but the snack was larger than needed to fix so I did took a partial bolus and went back to sleep. I woke up and didn’t remember taking any insulin so I did it again. Rollecoasting ensued. I’ll mess up worse, I’ve only been at this for 2.5 years.”

“Bolused for 80 carbs instead of 8 before a workout without realizing it. Dexcom alerted and I quickly realized how much IOB I had. Apple juice and gels to the rescue.”

“I’m on Zyloprim for my gout and I fill my pill case once a week. I accidentally put Zolpidem in and was wondering why I kept waking up so damn tired!”

It is safe to say that managing our condition can be risky at times. We are administering medication and insulin, which can be extremely dangerous if the wrong dose is given. We must remain diligent at all times to avoid errors, all the while realizing that we are human and we do make mistakes. Have grace with yourself.

Have you ever made a dangerous mistake? Comment and share below, hopefully, we can help each other to avoid similar occurrences.

Source: diabetesdaily.com

A Letter to My 12 Year Old Self: Diabetes, 20 Years On

Dear Chrissy,

It’s June 20th, 2000, and right now you’re in the emergency department of the King’s Daughters Children’s Hospital in Norfolk, Virginia. You were supposed to be on a weeklong vacation with your siblings and parents, frolicking in the salty seawater and eating cotton candy on the boardwalk of Virginia Beach, but instead, on day three of the trip, you’ve been rushed via ambulance to the ER, feeling weak, nauseous, and on the brink of unconsciousness. You’re small. An active cheerleader in your middle school, you’ve lost over 30 lbs in a little under a month, which is striking on your lithe frame. Every nurse notices how underweight you are.

The glucometer at the Urgent Care your parents took you to this morning simply read, “HIGH”. When the nurse looks at your parents and says the words, “your daughter has diabetes”, it’s the first time you’ve ever seen dad cry. You’re completely terrified that the word “diabetes” has “die” as the first syllable. Are you going to die? Thankfully, no. Not today, and not within the next 20 years, either.

The next few years will be hard, actually, they all are. Sadly, even though diabetes is technically “manageable”, it never really gets any easier, but you’ll become tougher. You will try out four different insulin pumps before you find one, at the ripe old age of 30 (and spoiler alert, it’s tubeless). You’ll prick your tiny, fragile fingers literally thousands of times, but in 15 years (the time will fly by, I promise), you’ll use a seemingly magical machine that checks your blood sugar 288 times per day for you, without you having to do A THING, and it’ll transmit the numbers to your telephone (those things are cordless in the future, too). Eventually, but I’m getting ahead of myself now, those numbers will talk to your insulin pump for you, and make dosing decisions while you drive, or work, or makeout, or go running, or read a novel. Science is pretty neat.

Once you start the 7th grade, you won’t tell anyone about your new mystery disease. Honestly? You’re embarrassed. The only other people you’ve ever met with diabetes were your elderly next-door neighbor’s sister and Wilford Brimley, from TV. You make your mom pinky swear that she won’t tell your friends’ moms, and you promise yourself that you just won’t attend sleepovers until you go away for college. Please don’t do this to yourself. Spare yourself the heartache. Diabetes will give you physical battle scars and mental wounds, but it will also develop some of the most beautiful attributes people will love about you: your compassion for others, your enthusiasm to live in the moment, your fearlessness in the face of adversity, your humility, your grace.

You’ll be the only 13-year-old girl drinking Tab at your bestie’s summer birthday party. Don’t be embarrassed. Exotically-flavored seltzer waters will be all the rage in 20 years. You’re just ahead of your time.

You’ll grow up quickly. You were always conscientious, polite, and studious, but having diabetes will make you disciplined, strong-willed, and courageous–you won’t really have a choice in the matter. Diabetes will toughen you where you’re soft; diabetes will break you open.

You’ll become obsessed with counting carbs (trust me, this is good), and dosing correctly (also good), but will become preternaturally focused on food and nutrition. You will deny and deny and deny. You’ll eat an apple when everyone is enjoying an ice cream; you’ll swear that string cheese is more fun than cookies. This can sometimes be good in the name of a better hba1c, but please, let yourself be a child for a little while longer. You’ll cry, because having a chronic disease can be very lonely and sad sometimes, and it’s okay to be sad sometimes, too. Go to therapy. It’ll be worth it.

Your mom will make you go to diabetes camp. You will resist going at every turn. You will cry and scream, and when she drops you off at the loading dock of Camp Setebaid, you swear you’ll never talk to her again. But by night three, you will have forgotten all about the hardships of living amongst “nons”. You’ll meet some of your closest friends at diabetes camp, and they’ll last a lifetime. You’ll have camp crushes, and camp kisses, and still remember campfire songs until your mid-30s. You’ll go waltzing with bears, and do the polar bear swim, and learn how to build a campfire, and get lost in the woods under a velvety night sky, and will learn how to use a cleavus, and will eat two dozen chocolate chip cookies one night when you accidentally replace your dose of Lantus with Humalog (oops). You’ll pee your pants laughing, and cry every summer when camp ends. You’ll make many friends along the way–friends who get it, who get you, for the first time ever. You’ll lose some of them over the years, to diabetes, or depression, or both, and will weep at their funerals. Your best camp friend will be in your wedding party in 17 years.

You’ll become tough. You never asked for this life, but you sure have made a point of living it to the fullest. There will be many doctors who will try and tell you things you can’t or shouldn’t do: join the swim team, play competitive sports, travel abroad, go to college out of state, have children–and you’ll prove most of them wrong. You will learn to not take no for an answer. You’ll develop an iron will. You’ll become gritty as hell.

Diabetes will encourage your interests in health and well-being, and out of college you’ll be a social worker, eventually getting your master of public health (I don’t think this degree exists in 2000, but it’s coming down the pike). You’ll be a vegetarian. You’ll run marathons. You’ll climb something that’s called a 14er (I know you live in Pennsylvania, but someday, when you live in Colorado, this will be a very big deal). You’ll find your dream job of working in diabetes advocacy, that will take your passion and use it to help thousands of other people who struggle with the same issues you do. You’ll change lives for the better.

One day, you’ll meet a man at work, who’s sweet and kind and compassionate. One evening, still in the early days of dating, you’ll notice he bought three containers of glucose tabs and stored them in his pantry without telling you. “Just so you feel safe here,” he says. Three years later, you’ll marry him.

In 20 years, you won’t have everything all figured out, but you’ll know more about who you are, and who you want to be. And diabetes, in large part, has helped to craft that. I know you’re seeing dad cry right now, so why don’t you go give him a hug and let him know everything will be okay. Because, really, in time, it will be.

Love,

Christine

Source: diabetesdaily.com

What to Do If You Need Insulin Right Now

This content originally appeared on Beyond Type 1. Republished with permission.

By Lala Jackson

What to Do If You Have No Insulin at All

Go to the emergency room. Under US law (The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act), the emergency room cannot turn you down in a life-threatening emergency if you do not have insurance or the ability to pay.

If Emergency Room staff is telling you they cannot treat you, stay put. Be clear that you are in a life-threatening emergency because you have type 1 diabetes (T1D) but do not have insulin. Do not leave. Please note that urgent care centers are not required to abide by the same laws.

Once you are stabilized and before you leave the hospital, hospital staff is required to meet with you to make sure you understand that you are leaving the hospital of your own accord. At this time, let the hospital staff person know about any financial situation you are in. Some hospitals are aligned with charities that can help you pay. Other hospitals offer payment plans based on your situation. No matter your financial situation, know that your life is the most important thing.

What to Do If You Have Some Insulin, But Are About to Run Out

Utilize Kevin’s Law

If you have an existing prescription at your pharmacy, but have not been able to get ahold of your healthcare provider to renew the prescription, you may be able to take advantage of Kevin’s Law. Kevin’s Law was named for a man with T1D who passed away after not being able to access his insulin prescription over the New Year’s holiday. Under the law, pharmacists are able to provide an emergency refill of insulin in certain states, without the authorization of a physician to renew the prescription. Rules around the law vary from state to state and not all states have the law in place. Kevin’s Law only applies to those who have an existing prescription and, depending on where you live, your insurance may or may not cover the refill. Learn more about Kevin’s Law, including whether or not your state has it, here. Please note, your pharmacist may not know the law by name, or know that the law exists. If you are in a state with Kevin’s Law and working with a pharmacist who is unaware, stay put and ask to speak to someone else in the pharmacy.

Ask Your Physician for Samples

While this is not a long-term access option, your care provider may be able to provide you with a few vials/pens for free, and bringing your HCP into the access conversation means that they can help direct you to other options that might be available to you, like local community health centers with insulin available.

Utilize Patient Assistance Programs – Standard out of Pocket Cost $0

  • If you take Lilly insulin (Humalog, Basaglar) call the Lilly Diabetes Solutions Call Center Helpline at 1-833-808-1234
    for personalized assistance. You may be eligible for free insulin through LillyCares.
  • If you take Novo Nordisk insulin (Fiasp, NovoLog, NovoRapid, Levemir, Tresiba) and demonstrate immediate need or risk of rationing, you can receive a free, one-time, immediate supply of up to three vials or two packs of pens by calling 844-NOVO4ME (844-668-6463) or by visiting NovoCare.com
  • If you take Sanofi insulin (Admelog, Lantus, Toujeo): the Patient Connection Program provides Sanofi insulins to those who qualify, which is limited to those with no private insurance and who do not qualify for federal insurance programs and who are at or below 250% of the federal poverty level – with a few exceptions.

Utilize CoPay Cards – Standard out of Pocket Cost $35 – $99 per Month

Copay cards that reduce the out-of-pocket cost you pay at the pharmacy exist for most types of insulin. Some copay cards can be emailed to you within 24 hours. Currently, copay programs exist for:

  • Lilly, capping copays at $35 per month for those with no insurance or with commercial insurance
  • Novo Nordisk, capping copays at $99 for those with no insurance or with commercial insurance
  • Sanofi, capping copays at $99 for those without prescription medication insurance
  • Mannkind, capping copays at $15 for some of those with commercial insurance

Unfortunately, copay cards are typically not available for those insured through Medicaid or Medicare. Use the tool from the Partnership for Prescription Assistance to search in one place for discount programs and copay cards you qualify for here. Please be aware that you will need to search by brand name (i.e. Humalog, Novolog), not just “insulin.”

Get R & NPH Human Insulins – Standard out of Pocket Cost $25-$40 per Vial

R (Regular) and N (NPH) human insulins are available over-the-counter in 49 states and cost much less ($25-$40 per vial at Walmart) than analog insulins such Novolog, Humalog, Lantus, or Basaglar. They also work differently than analog insulins – they start working and peak at different times – but in an emergency situation can be a resource. Speak with the pharmacist or your healthcare provider if possible before changing your regimen and keep a very close eye on your blood sugar levels while using R & N insulin.

Research Available Biosimilar (Generic) Insulins

The biosimilar insulin market is changing rapidly as the FDA adopts new regulatory pathways to more efficiently approve interchangeable insulins that may be available for a lower price. Ask your healthcare provider for the most up-to-date options for you. A few options available are:

  • A generic version of Humalog — Insulin Lispro — is available at pharmacies in the U.S. for $137.35 per vial and $265.20 for a package of five KwikPens (50% the price of Humalog.) If you have a prescription for Humalog, you do not need an additional prescription for Lispro; your pharmacist will be able to substitute the cheaper option. Insulin Lispro is not currently covered by insurance.
  • Authorized generic versions of NovoLog and NovoLog Mix at 50% list price are stocked at the wholesaler level. People can order them at the pharmacy and they’ll be available for pick up in 1-3 business days

If you have enough insulin to last you a few days, but need to figure out where to get a more reliable, consistent supply, visit our Get Insulin page to find further resources.

Source: diabetesdaily.com

Insulin Co-Payment Cap Bills

America has a unique problem: prescription drug prices are too expensive for many people. In 2018 alone, 1 in 5 Americans (or 37 million non-elderly adults) went without a prescription drug due to cost. One of the most egregious examples of the high cost of prescription drugs is the rising cost of insulin in the United States. There are over 34 million Americans with diabetes, and at least 8 million are dependent on insulin to live. The list price of insulin has nearly tripled since 2002 and the average price of the drug has increased by 64% since 2014 alone. Most tellingly, a pivotal Yale study recently reported that as many as 1 in 4 people with diabetes have rationed their insulin due to cost. So, what are lawmakers doing about the problem?

Insulin co-payment caps have become a wildly popular idea by state lawmakers to curb the price of insulin for some insured patients in their states. Notably, Colorado was the first state in the nation to pass such legislation, making national news in May 2019. The bill, which caps monthly co-payments (for some insured patients) at $100, went into effect on January 1, 2020.

The main bill sponsor, Representative Dylan Roberts, said, “Colorado is leading the way with this measure, but this is just a first step. We won’t stop until all the pharmaceutical companies and drug middlemen start taking more accountability and stop gouging patients with their high costs.”

Other states have followed suit. The Illinois Governor signed into law similar legislation this past January (although the law doesn’t take effect until January 1, 2021), and there are currently similar bills pending in 36 other states.

insulin sensitivity

The average cost of a vial of insulin in America is over $300. | Photo credit: Adobe Stock

This is great news for many people with diabetes. The average cost of a vial of insulin in America is over $300, and people with insulin-dependent diabetes often require multiple types and vials of insulin per month, which can drive up the price (to live!) into the thousands. Capping co-payments, or essentially “carving” out a $100 co-payment (especially for people on high-deductible health plans who are paying the full list price of insulin until they hit their deductible, which can sometimes be in the high-thousands) can save people thousands of dollars and will undoubtedly help save lives.

Some people may think this solves the insulin pricing crisis, but it doesn’t. These bills are a great start to bring attention to the exorbitant cost of prescription insulin, but there are many people who don’t qualify under these new laws. State legislatures only have jurisdiction over state-regulated health plans, and thus cannot determine pricing on ERISA plans, or health insurance plans that are fully or partially managed by the federal government, such as Medicare, Medicaid, or the Veteran’s Health Administration. Additionally, any large, private employer plans would not fall under the law. Most importantly, anyone who’s uninsured does not receive protection under this law, and must still pay the full list price of insulin at the pharmacy counter.

For states that have expanded Medicaid, this doesn’t pose as much of a problem, as more people are covered by some sort of insurance (Medicaid co-payments are usually set between $1-3). States with robust exchange programs also benefit more under these laws, as by definition these are state-regulated plans that are subject to the co-payment caps. But for people who don’t qualify for Medicaid, cannot afford a health exchange plan, and find themselves without insurance, they’re still stuck paying these outrageous prices, which is sometimes a matter of life or death.

And the problem isn’t going away. The Health Care Cost Institute reported that the price of insulin doubled in a span of four years, between 2012 and 2016. According to their report, the average price a patient with type 1 diabetes paid for insulin in 2012 was $2,864 but that doubled to $5,705 by 2016.

Why is the cost for a nearly 100-year-old drug continuing to rise? For one thing, there are no generic competitors, and only three companies manufacture the drug. Secondly, insulin products are protected under patent laws, which allow the manufacturer to sell a product unchallenged in the market before a generic can be introduced. Novo Nordisk, Eli Lily, and Sanofi, the three main insulin manufacturers, have continued to “tweak” their insulin products in order to extend their exclusivity rights and hold onto their patent longer, without facing competition from generics. In fact, Sanofi has filed lawsuits in the past against Merck and Mylan to prevent them from going to market with a generic version of Sanofi’s Lantus insulin. Additionally, our government (unlike most other countries in the world) does not negotiate drug pricing with pharmaceutical companies, and thus there are no regulations on how high pricing can be set.

This national crisis has even gotten the attention of current and former Presidential hopefuls: Mayor Pete Buttegieg, Senator Amy Klobuchar, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Senator Bernie Sanders, Tom Steyer, and even Vice President Joe Biden have all called out insulin specifically when talking about outrageous drug pricing.

Congress has also started paying closer attention, and H.R. 3, the Lower Drug Costs Now Act has been introduced that would allow for The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to negotiate drug prices on certain drugs (including insulin) to lower the costs, among other measures. Co-Chairs of the Congressional Diabetes Caucus, U.S. Representative Diana Degette and Representative Tom Reed, have also introduced the Insulin Price Reduction Act, which, if enacted, would decrease the price of insulin nearly 75% for Americans, to costs equal to those in 2006. These are all great first steps to addressing American’s cries for help, and to help reduce the burden millions of people with diabetes are facing every day.

Any legislation will have its pros and cons, but people with diabetes suffering due to high drug pricing don’t have to suffer in silence any longer. Politicians are taking note and action, and one day I hope we can all declare the crisis solved.

Have you been negatively affected by the high price of insulin in the United States? Share this article and post your story in the comments below, we’d love to hear from you!

Source: diabetesdaily.com

I Thrive: Finding Her Focus

Meet Melissa Williams, a popular influencer and amateur fitness model trying to fulfill her dreams. When she looks back on her diagnosis of type 1 diabetes in 2011 she just has to laugh. Her health and fitness journey began before that fateful diagnosis, being in her early 20’s and living life to the fullest. Going […]
Source: diabetesdaily.com

1 2

Search

+