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

Using Smartphone Tracking to Identify Patients with Depression (ADA 2020)

At the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 80th scientific sessions last week, Dr. Ashutosh Subharwal, Department Chair and Director of Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Rice University, put together a compelling presentation that showed the benefits of using smartphone sensors to measure behavior-biology pathways and use those findings to assess, treat and improve healthcare outcomes for depressed patients living with diabetes.

Scaleable Health Labs believes that there should be a bio-behavioral sensing layer to healthcare using simultaneous, non-invasive and accurate measures to provide clinicians with data to better help their patients. They feel using quantitative data from a sensor-based automatic measurement will be more useful than asking patients questions and having their answers be based on their own perception. For example, when asking patients how often they exercise, their answer may vary drastically from the data from their sensor.

The presentation focused on 3 areas: Mobile bio-imaging, behavioral sensing, and data science for health.

Dr. Subharwal proposed two questions:

  1. Can we track depressive/anxiety states?
  2. Can we measure loneliness?

Can We Track Depressive/Anxiety States?

Depression is a common comorbidity of diabetes and is often undetected and untreated. A study explored this in adults and adolescents, using a tool called SOLVD: Smartphone and Online Usage as based eValuation for Depression, by way of a smartphone as a wearable for tracking depression.

The two clinical pilots for SOLVD consisted of the following:

  • Bi-weekly clinical visits.
  • Logging feelings in a MoodReminder Module.
  • The MobileLogger Module, which has the sensor logging social use (phone calls/texts), mobility (GPS/steps/accelerometer) and phone usage (screen time, screen light, etc.), all while being respectful to keep any conversations private.
  • A new parent app for the teenage pilot that used the parent’s feedback as a sensor to measure their children’s mental well-being.

Using this combinational sensor data allowed clinicians to track who, when and for how long the patient was speaking with or texting an individual. They were able to track where the patient was going and the duration of time spent at each location. There were also many other extracted features from the smartphones related to communications, mobility and sleep collected daily, as listed in the chart below.

Key Findings

This method proved to be a useful way to continuously track a patient’s mental state. The patients did not find it intrusive and were willing to be tracked. They saw a strong correlation between the daily self-reported moods and different diagnostic questionnaires in both teens and adults. Also, when patients had fewer phone calls/text messages and shorter frequency of these exchanges, it was predictive of higher depression symptoms. Additionally, as the number of steps walked decreased, there was an increase in the participant’s depressive state.

In both studies, there was a correlation between the data collected from the smartphone and the patient’s psychometric scores, and a noticeably stronger correlation in the moderate to severely depressed participants. The data indicate that the more depressed a patient was, the less mobile and social the person became. This information can help providers to better assess and treat their patients.

Can We Measure Loneliness?

Sociability is crucial to our overall well-being and lack of social encounters are indicators of loneliness. The traditional measures of sociability are often questionnaires, patient self-tracking, the UCLA loneliness scale but all of these require participant effort and many times the report lacks enough detail to draw any conclusions.

SocialSense, an in-person social network (IPSN) is able to track real-life, in-person interactions through audio data. This tracking device is able to detect conversations, detect social scenes and context as well as turn-taking behaviors, with no content analysis to respect participant’s privacy.

The Sociability Clinical Pilot at Baylor College of Medicine (emailed waiting for confirmation) spent 1 week audio-tracking their participants, using the daily smartphone app sensor features discussed above, along with patient baseline psychometric measures.

Key Findings

A decrease in sociability was seen among patients with depression, including fewer longer conversations and fewer social contacts. The SocialSense reports were consistent with the self-reports. SocialSense was also able to detect audio self-talk conversations amongst patients with psychosis.

Conclusions

  • Most patients are willing to be monitored via technology (>80% adherence).
  • These tracking studies are among the first of their kind to study adolescents and adults who suffer from depression. They are also the first to use the new tool for psychiatry, the parent app.
  • Data from the participant’s phone sensor and usage features correlated with symptoms of depression, which was even more pronounced in the moderate to severely depressed patients.
  • The data we can get from wearables can help better evaluate a patient’s mental well-being and develop the most appropriate solutions.

What are your thoughts on the subject? How would you feel about your activities being tracked for health purposes?

Source: diabetesdaily.com

Control-IQ: The Good, the Challenges, and Tips

This content originally appeared on diaTribe. Republished with permission.

After a month of her daughter using Control-IQ, Katie Bacon reviews the pros and cons of the algorithm and shares her family’s tips and takeaways

When the email came through in early April that our daughter, Bisi, could now download the software to run Control-IQ on her t:slim insulin pump, the timing seemed perfect. After all, our family was staying at home due to COVID-19, so we had plenty of time together to do the training and figure out the new system and how it worked for Bisi and her blood glucose levels. Plus, from everything I’d read about COVID, keeping blood sugars as stable as possible was more important than ever, and it seemed like Control-IQ could help us with that. (The Control-IQ algorithm uses data from Dexcom’s CGM to lower insulin delivery when a low is predicted and to increase insulin when a high is predicted – learn more about Control-IQ here.)

Bisi has now been on the new system for about a month, and while it hasn’t been a magic bullet and we’re still learning, Control-IQ has improved Bisi’s time in range by about 5% (and we’re hopeful that her time in range will continue to improve). Also, even more importantly, it’s improved her quality of life – and ours, as the parents who watch out for her. When I sat down with Bisi recently to ask her about the change, I got her perspective on the burden she feels diabetes has placed on her ­– and the power of Control-IQ to lighten that load. She told me that before using Control-IQ, at any given time 30-40% of her focus was on diabetes. I was taken aback by this percentage, since Mark (my husband) and I have always tried to take some of the weight for her. As she told me, “It feels demanding, like a lot of pressure, as if someone’s poking my head.” But with Control-IQ, she says, she doesn’t need to worry about much except bolusing insulin at mealtime. She has fewer highs, fewer lows, and she says she feels better physically than she did before. “For as long as I can remember, diabetes has been a main focus of my life, but it really shouldn’t be that way. So it’s been nice not to focus on it as much,” she said.

In terms of what Bisi has experienced over the past few weeks since switching to Control-IQ, I’ve divided my thoughts into the pros and cons of the system as we’ve experienced it; I’ve also included tips drawn from what we’ve learned from Bisi’s endocrinologist and DCES.

Pros of Control-IQ:

  • Graph

    Image source: diaTribe

    We’ve found that Control-IQ works particularly well at night, when Bisi isn’t eating anything or bolusing. While our nights had already improved with Basal-IQ (which did a good job minimizing Bisi’s lows), Control-IQ brings down any highs as well (see the graph on the right). I’d say that when Bisi’s pump only dealt with the lows, we still had to wake up maybe six to eight nights a month, on average – and sometimes multiple times in one night. But in the month since Bisi started on Control-IQ, we’ve only had to wake up three times. This is a big change in our quality of sleep (and quality of life).

  • Control-IQ helps keep blood sugars down during the day. As before, Bisi’s blood sugars are less stable during the day, when her activity is variable and when she’s eating meals and snacks. But now, Control-IQ raises her basal rate when she’s headed high and gives modified boluses (60% of what’s called for) if the highs are sustained. We’ve found that her blood sugar does not rise as steeply, according to her CGM, and also that it often tops out at a lower number than it used to.

Cons of Control-IQ:

  • There were a few instances where Bisi had sustained lows that were more difficult than usual to counteract with carbohydrates. These instances have all been when she’s started exercising with a lot of active insulin on board, due to Control-IQ turning up her basal rate in response to a high. Before using Control-IQ, if Bisi’s blood sugar was high, she (maybe with a reminder from me) would have to make a decision to either turn up her basal or give a correction. If she knew that she was going to get exercise in the near future, she wouldn’t do either of those things. But now they happen automatically, so she’s sometimes stuck with too much active insulin on board. It requires a different kind of thinking and a different kind of planning than before.
  • Both Bisi and I wish there were a little more flexibility in Control-IQ so she could set her own target. Bisi used to set her target at 100 day and night, and would often run at 80 or 90 while she was sleeping. With Control-IQ’s built in Sleep Mode target of 110, Bisi runs a little higher than she is used to, especially at night.

Thoughts and Tips for using Control-IQ:

  • We have found that being consistent about pre-meal bolusing is even more important with Control-IQ than it was before. If Bisi waits too long to bolus, her blood sugar goes too high, she gets more basal and an extra 60% bolus from Control-IQ, and then her blood sugar goes too low later on.
  • While it might seem like Control-IQ could enable people to be a little freer in what they eat, so far it has emphasized the benefits of eating low carb as the best way to avoid food-related spikes and insulin-related dips. No matter how good an algorithm is, it’s always going to be reactive rather than proactive, and we’ve found that the smaller the inputs in terms of number of carbs eaten, the more smoothly Control-IQ works. (I think this is partly why it tends to work better for Bisi at night, when she’s not eating anything, than during the day.)
  • Bisi’s endocrinologist validated our sense that exercise-related lows can be steeper with Control-IQ, since you tend to have more active insulin on board. Because you can’t do a temporary basal rate with Control-IQ, she suggested that we set up an alternate program with basal rates cut by 50%. If Bisi knows she’s going to exercise, she can turn on this alternate program 90 minutes to 2 hours before. Or, if she’s eating beforehand, she can put in fewer carbs/give less insulin. Either way, the trick is remembering.
  • During Bisi’s most recent appointment, her endocrinologist pointed us to a feature of Bisi’s Tandem reports that’s helpful to look at as a way to adjust settings. She told us to focus on the difference in the Logbook section between the Basal Total Delivered and the Basal Profile Setting, as a way to tell whether her basal rate at any given time should be raised or lowered; the closer the settings are to the amount of insulin that’s being delivered, the more smoothly the Control-IQ algorithm will work. She also suggested that we “Marie Kondo” (streamline and declutter) Bisi’s basal rates, which had proliferated over time, to help us see more easily where adjustments need to be made.
  • We realized that if Bisi has a random high blood sugar, particularly at night, we should assume that something has gone wrong with her pump site. Before Control-IQ, pump site failure was only one of several reasons – including the dawn phenomenon and the meal she’d eaten the night before – that her blood sugar might have gone high. This realization has helped us reduce that middle of the night detective work, when your brain is at its foggiest. If Bisi has a persistent high, the problem is most likely the pump site, not the algorithm.
  • One adjustment that Bisi has struggled with is remembering to turn off her insulin when she takes off her pump to shower or play sports. (The Control-IQ algorithm is thrown off when the system doesn’t have an accurate sense of how much insulin you have on board.) This is a work in progress for us.

Even though we still feel like we have more work to do in terms of getting the best out of the new algorithm, Control-IQ has improved Bisi’s life in important ways. As Bisi’s endocrinologist told us, “It’s not perfect, and you need to think more about active insulin than you did before. But the goal with this is to have diabetes interrupt your life less than it did before.” For Bisi, the important aim of staying in range now requires less mental effort. As she said recently when looking at her CGM graph after 24 hours of Control-IQ: “This is pure gold.”

This article is part of a series on time in range made possible by support from the Time in Range Coalition. The diaTribe Foundation retains strict editorial independence for all content.

About Katie

Katie Bacon is a writer and editor based in Boston. Her daughter, Bisi, was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in August, 2012, when she was six. Katie’s writing about diabetes has appeared on TheAtlantic.com and ASweetLife. Katie has also written for The New York Times, The Boston Globe, and other publications. 

Source: diabetesdaily.com

Debate: Can Technology Eliminate Hypoglycemia? (ADA 2020)

Advances in diabetes technology have brought forth a lot of new and valuable tools to people living with diabetes. From continuous glucose monitors (CGMs), to insulin pumps, to integrated systems that can automatically adjust insulin delivery based on CGM reading to safeguard against hypoglycemia, diabetes tech is rapidly evolving. For all insulin users, low blood glucose is of particular concern; too much insulin on board can quickly result in an emergency situation, if not promptly addressed.

At the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 80th Scientific Sessions, experts debated the following important question:

Can technology alone solve the problem of hypoglycemia in diabetes?

Dr. Richard M Bergenstal, MD from the International Diabetes Center at Park Nicollet argued “for”, while Dr. Emma G. Wilmot, MD from the University Hospitals of Derby and Burton present her case “against” this notion. Here is the synopsis from this exciting debate. Notably, both presenters disclosed numerous relationships with technology companies and pharmaceutical companies.

Yes, Technology Alone Can Solve the Issue of Hypoglycemia

Dr. Bergenstal began by defining four specific “problems” of hypoglycemia:

  1. “Dangerous levels and ripple effects of hypoglycemia”—low blood glucose levels can cause mental turmoil and may prevent patients from striving for optimal glycemia
  2. Defining hypoglycemia
  3. Detecting hypoglycemia
  4. Preventing hypoglycemia

We have been pretty unsuccessful at preventing hypoglycemia; that is, until technology was introduced,” he stated.

Strikingly, the presenter mentioned that after over 20 years of improvements to the average a1C levels, they are now increasing across the board. Dr. Bergenstal attributed this largely to people’s fear of hypoglycemia. He also mentioned a recent paper that indicates that, sadly, we are also experiencing a “resurgence in diabetes-related complications.”

Next, the presenter addressed the importance of consistently defining hypoglycemia. He explained that the official definitions of hypoglycemia (as defined for clinical trials reporting) have been evolving in recent years, now often defined by levels.

Then, the speaker moved forward to discuss that CGM technology was critical to the most thorough detection of hypoglycemia, noting that self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG, or finger-sticks) did not present the whole picture of blood glucose trends, making it more likely that low blood glucose could go unnoticed. Moreover, he argued that the accuracy of today’s CGM devices are on par with many blood glucose meters.

As far as the capability of technology in preventing hypoglycemia, Dr. Bergestal presented data from a very large international study showing that CGM use resulted in a tremendous decrease in both hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia, across a large patient population, across the board. He also presented data from several other studies that demonstrated the benefits of CGM technology as related to the incidence of hypoglycemia.

Next, he also addressed the role of “smart insulin pumps” that communicate with CGMs in helping to further reduce hypoglycemia. Strikingly, the results from one study using an “automated basal/hybrid closed loop system (closed loop at all times with meal-time manual assist bolusing)” resulted in a 100% reduction in hypoglycemia. The presenter also showed some case reports that suggested more technology (CGM + Pump vs. CGM + MDI) may yield better glycemic management. Furthermore, he touched upon several other advancements, ranging from faster-acting insulin formulations on the market and in development to smart insulin pens, and their relevance in improving outcomes (see below).

Dr. Bergenstal had this to say in conclusion:

“Technology can address [all four problems of hypoglycemia]… We’re going now from just good clinical care, to really ethics and just morality, I think. This journal of HealthCare Ethics Committee Forum, they looked at and postulated that continuous glucose monitoring is really a matter of justice. I know that sounds a little extreme, but if it can do what I’m showing you it can do, and people are struggling every day, maybe they really do have a right to use this technology… I think we better rely on technology to prevent the highs and the lows of diabetes.”  

No, Technology Alone Cannot Solve the Issue of Hypoglycemia

Dr. Emma Wilmot began by sharing that she loves diabetes technology, and that it plays an important role in reducing hypoglycemia. “However, technology ALONE can solve the problem of hypoglycemia? If only it were that simple,” she stated.

The speaker went on to present data showing that despite CGM use, as many as 25% of users are still experiencing severe hypoglycemia. She argued that “structured education” in diabetes management plays a more central role in reducing hypoglycemia, pointing to numerous research studies showing significantly improved outcomes following a formal diabetes education program.

Moreover, Dr. Wilmot commented on the role of hypoglycemia unawareness, and how reducing the incidence of low blood glucose levels via educational programs, also helped to mitigate hypoglycemia unawareness, in turn likely reducing severe hypoglycemia even more.   In contrast, she stated that there is no research to show that technology use can help to mitigate hypoglycemia unawareness. Furthermore, the presenter discussed several studies that showed “no additional benefit” of technology use (CGM and/or insulin pumps).

Technology is not for all,” Dr. Wilmot noted, citing issues like various technical problems, alarm fatigue, and site skin reactions. Strikingly, according to data from T1 Exchange, “41% had stopped using CGM in the past year.” Similarly, she noted, “30% of youth discontinued the hybrid closed-loop system”. Access and affordability is another paramount issue, she noted.

Rebuttals

While Dr. Bergenstal remarked that he understood and appreciated the role of patient education programs, he noted in his rebuttal, that the glycemic outcomes are not optimal in these patient populations, stating he believes technology can give us better control, reducing both hypo- and hyperglycemia.

Dr. Wilmot concurred that the levels of glycemia currently being achieve are “nowhere near good enough” and also agreed that several established educational programs are now incorporating technology education as well. However, she maintained that technology alone was not the sole solution.

Dr. Bergestal concurred with this, but also stated that technology is “outpacing everything else we’ve thrown at hypoglycemia so far.”

Conclusions

While most will agree that technology use can help to reduce hypoglycemia, whether it can be altogether (or even mostly) overcome with technology use alone remains a point of debate. Undoubtedly, the role of education in diabetes management plays a pivotal role. There is no “set-it-and-forget-it” in diabetes management today, not quite yet, anyway, and certainly not across the board for patients. Perhaps, as smart technology evolves further and becomes more mainstream, it may eventually overtake patient education in importance when it comes to preventing adverse events.

What are your thoughts on this subject?

Source: diabetesdaily.com

Creative Bolus Strategies Result in Better Glycemic Control (ADA 2020)

At the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 80th scientific sessions on Friday afternoon, Margaret Pellizzarri, RN, MS, MBA, CDE along with the Integrated Diabetes Services team, including Gary Scheiner, MS, CDE delivered a unique presentation on clever insulin bolusing techniques for people living with diabetes who use a pump or multiple daily injections, when dosing for high-protein and high-fat meals.

Bolus Options

  • Normal bolusing–delivers insulin all at once and is used for most meals
  • Square bolusing–delivers insulin over a period of time. This is especially useful in situations where there is a buffet or you are eating over a longer period of time. Patients with gastroparesis also can benefit from square bolusing since their digestion is slowed down.
  • Combination or dual-wave bolus–delivers a portion of the insulin as a normal bolus and the rest as an extended or square bolus. This can be particularly helpful with meals that are high in fat, high in both fat and carbs, as well as for high-protein meals.

Insulin Dosing for Protein and Fat: Studies and Strategies

Studies conducted in both people living with type 1 and type 2 diabetes indicate that fat slows down gastric emptying and slows down glucose absorption. This can result in hypoglycemia for patients after a fat-laden meal. Several studies demonstrate that both high-fat and high-protein meals require more insulin to achieve target postprandial blood glucose levels. Furthermore, glycemic responses vary depending on the specific macronutrient profile of the meal, with higher-protein meals tending to cause prolonged hyperglycemia (if not accounted for). Altogether, this indicates that the insulin delivery strategy must be optimized in dose and timing to achieve the most optimal results when consuming such meals. 

Here are the highlights from the presentation:

  • One study showed that high-protein, high-fat meals required 30% more insulin over 6 hours and suggested using a glucose meter or continuous glucose monitor (CGM) to adjust as needed.
  • Another investigation demonstrated that consuming a mixed protein mixed meal (36 g protein, 30 g carbs, 5 g fat) when dosing only for the carb content, resulted in higher postprandial glucose values. By using a protein-fat insulin dosing algorithm, they suggested that adding 66% more insulin delivered in a combination bolus over three hours resulted in improved glucose levels. The impact of a meal that was higher in protein and fat, showed to be additive to postprandial glucose levels.
  • One study showed that mealtime doses for individuals with type 1 diabetes need to be individualized. For high-fat meals (more than 40 g), patients should consider additional mealtime insulin, around 30-35% of the initial dose. For individuals using pumps, it is recommended to try a combination bolus with half the dose before eating and half delivered over 2-2.5 hours after eating.
  • One investigation suggested that high-protein and high-fat meals require a >60% ICR (insulin-carb ratio) as a standard bolus before the meal with an additional ICR up to 70% in an extended bolus starting at 1.5-5 hours after the meal.

Conclusions

  • Experts suggest altering your insulin dosing and changing the timing of insulin delivery can help better navigate tricky meals that are high in fat and/or protein.
  • Using the bolus techniques presented above, those on an insulin pump can experiment to achieve what works best (Note: If low blood glucose occurs, it is recommended to extend the duration of the remainder of the extended dose.)
  • Those using multiple daily injections can also vary the timing and dose of their insulin according to the specific meal (although this may be more tedious). You could also consider different insulin based on their activity profiles (make sure to discuss any changes with your healthcare provider!).
  • Despite the manufacturer’s recommendations of dosing insulin within 15 minutes of meal consumption or immediately after, research shows that best postprandial glycemic results are achieved when taking the specific macronutrient distribution of the meal into account and adjusting both insulin amounts and timing to best match that food profile.
  • Recent research shows that injecting 15-20 minutes before meals is safe, and results in 30% lower glucose levels and less post-meal hyperglycemia when premeal glucose levels were in range.

Whether you use a pump and can take advantage of the special bolusing features or are on multiple daily injections, there are strategies to try when consuming high-protein, high-fat meals. With some trial and error, we can all benefit these creative tactics to strive for improved postprandial glucose levels when it comes to the always challenging high-protein, high-fat meals. Be sure to always consult your healthcare provider before making any changes to your insulin dosing regimen.

***

What are your thoughts on the subject? Do you use any of these strategies? How do you navigate complex meals?

Stay tuned for more from the ADA 80th scientific sessions!

Source: diabetesdaily.com

Ketoacidosis Rates Plummet with Continuous Glucose Monitoring Use (ADA2020)

Maintaining their target blood glucose levels as much as possible is critical to preventing various health complications for all people with diabetes. One deadly outcome of high blood glucose levels is diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), which is a life-threatening emergency, but one that can typically be prevented with optimal glycemic management.

Checking blood glucose levels regularly and making the appropriate medication adjustments to keep in a safe blood glucose range is a challenge for many. Due to various factors, including sometimes a lack of access to a sufficient amount of test strips, patients may not be checking their blood glucose level as frequently as recommended.

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technology is a relatively new development in diabetes care, but has already been shown to benefit many patients as related to glycemic management, mental wellbeing, and overall quality of life. By providing users with almost real-time data of their glucose levels, couples with the ability to set alarms to address blood sugar values that are out of range, prior to developing an emergency situation appears to be a critical tool to help people with diabetes better manage their condition and help safeguard against critical situations like severe hypoglycemia or DKA.

A new study conducted by a team of French researchers has just revealed striking results that underscore the benefits of CGM access for patients. The researchers just presented the major outcomes of the study at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 80th Scientific Sessions this weekend.

Study Design

The researchers conducted a retrospective analysis of nationwide DKA records for patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes one year prior to the initiation of the use of Abbott’s Freestyle Libre system and compared it to the recorded DKA rates one year after the initiation of CGM use in this population. Data from a total of 33,203 patients with type 1 diabetes and 40,955 with type 2 diabetes were included in the study.

Major Outcomes

The differences in the DKA rates before and after CGM use were striking. Overall, the rate of DKA decreased by 52% among those with type 1 diabetes and by 47% among those with type 2 diabetes. Furthermore, the researchers evaluated the impact of CGM technology on patients with different self blood glucose monitoring (fingerstick frequency) habits. The data revealed that the reduction in DKA rate was the most dramatic for those who do not check their blood glucose level daily, as well as for those who check their blood glucose more than five times per day. In fact, the baseline DKA rates were the highest for these two groups. This may seem counterintuitive, but it is likely that patients who check frequently may be doing so because of difficulty in managing their condition.

Roussel et al. (Presented at ADA 2020)

Conclusions

This retrospective analysis of data from a large cohort of patients prior to and after the use of CGM technology suggests that CGM use can help to dramatically decrease the incidence of DKA. The observed improvements in DKA rates were the most pronounced for those who check their blood glucose very little, but also for those who check frequently (more than five times per day). Overall, the study results highlight the potential health benefits of CGM use in preventing DKA in a very large group of patients. Unfortunately, today, access and affordability of CGM systems still remains a challenge for many patients.

Source: diabetesdaily.com

6 Ways to Extend the Life of a Glucose Sensor

If you are living with type one or type two diabetes, you know that wearing a continuous glucose monitor makes managing your diabetes a whole lot easier. It also keeps you safe and gives you peace of mind. Unfortunately, it is a tremendous expense. Transmitters can cost around $300 dollars and they might expire every few months. A three-pack of sensors might cost around $400 but you will need them more often as they only last for so many days per FDA regulations. Keep in mind the price varies depending on the specific CGM, and insurance, copays, and deductibles.

The longer we can preserve a sensor, the less money we will have to spend. This is sometimes challenging, especially if a young child is wearing the sensor. But there are measures we can take to get more life out of our sensors. Please keep in mind that this is not recommended by the CGM companies, so extend the sensor at your own risk.

Here are six ways to get more life out of your CGM sensor:

1. Extend the Sensor Life

Clever technologists have discovered how to restart a Dexcom sensor to extend its life beyond ten days. The process works by exploiting a bug in the sensor pairing process. We recently updated our article, How to Extend the Dexcom G6 Sensor Beyond the Ten Day Hard Stop, and will continue to do so as any changes arise. And if you are using the Dexcom G5 sensor, here are instructions on how to extend that one.

2. Keep It Dry

While this isn’t necessarily realistic, the less moisture that touches and goes under the Dexcom sensor, the better. If you can dry your Dexcom thoroughly after showering or swimming, it is more likely to continue to stay intact and last longer. Some people even go as far as blow-drying it before putting on their clothes. Has anyone else noticed a Dexcom wet spot on their jeans after putting them on soon after showering?

3. Location Is Everything

Just like diabetes is different for everyone, so is the most optimal placement of their Dexcom. I personally love wearing mine on my thigh, I find it doesn’t get in the way during CrossFit and I no longer have compression lows. Once I got used to being conscious of it while dressing, this has been the best location for me.

Many parents of small children living with diabetes prefer to put it on their abdomen but others have better luck placing it on the child’s upper buttocks. This is an area that usually has the most fat and when it is out of sight, it is out of mind. This is helpful with young kids who might constantly touch or play with it.

For some people who wear pumps and Dexcom, finding a location for all their sites, while also being sure to rotate sites, can be very challenging. Many of my diabadass friends prefer their arms and find they get their longest life there!

4. Create a Barrier

By using a product like Skin Tac, you can create a barrier between the tape and skin. This will make for less irritation leading to longer life. It is also non-latex and hypo-allergenic but people with sensitive skin should always test the product first. It also removes easily with alcohol, making it an easier process for children.

There are also many products on the market that are overlay adhesives that are guaranteed to get you more life out of your sensor. One of my favorites is Pump Peelz as pictured below.

where to put dexcom

5. Keep It Clean

Avoid applying lotion to the adhesive, it will only saturate and soften up the material causing it to start to peel. Also, this time of year be conscious of where you apply your suntan lotion, this will also lessen the life of your sensor and additional adhesive if you have one on.

6. Be Cautious

No matter where you decide to place your sensor, there will be nuances that come with it. For me, being aware of its placement on my thigh has become second nature and I rarely have issues with ripping it off. The more aware you are, the better.

Getting the most life of your sensor means fewer insertions and more cost savings. Taking a few simple measures can make a huge difference for your sensor life!

*

Have you found any other creative ways or have any tips to share on how to extend the life of your sensor? Please comment and share below!

Source: diabetesdaily.com

Review: Withings Connected Devices Help You Manage Your Health

Featured in Newsweek Best Products of 2020, Withings products and services can provide a range of accurate real-world data, including weight, heart rate, temperature, and blood pressure readings, as well as activity and sleep—so you can be on top of your health and also have data that can be very useful for your healthcare provider to help manage your care. With much of healthcare going remote, these products are more important than ever to stay on top of your health.

Who They Are

A start-up company founded in 2008 by Eric Carreel sought out to develop connected devices and apps that allow people to measure, and track what is important for their health and then take the information to make educated decisions to achieve their goals.

Today, Withings connected scales, hybrid watches, blood pressure monitors and sleep monitors, are used by millions of people around the world.

What Products Do They Offer

Withings carries scales, watches, blood pressure monitors, thermometers and sleep monitors–all of which are synced to one app for easy tracking. You can also share this data with your medical care team, which will make your appointments that much more productive. And now with most healthcare professionals switching over to telehealth in the wake of COVID-19, having useful information to share with your provider will help you get the most out of these virtual appointments.

My Review

I received the Withings Body + scale which was voted best body composition scale of 2019 by Verywell and the BPM connect blood pressure monitor. The company provided me with the product at no charge. I received no additional compensation for this review and all opinions are my own.

Withings Scales

Withings offers 3 different scale options all of which give you a comprehensive view of your health by performing a 30-second reading when you step on the scale. Within seconds you can get a complete body analysis–an accurate weight, BMI, body fat, water %, muscle and bone mass. Each of the scales offers slightly different features, with the Body Cardio scale also offering cardiovascular health via heart rate. Another great feature on all of the scales is the local weather. This is great for me since I usually weigh in before I step outside for the day.

Every time you weigh-in, the information appears in the Health Mate’s easy to set up app, automatically, via WI-FI or Bluetooth sync. It can store information for up to eight people at a time and also connects to over one hundred other apps. There is also a baby and pregnancy mode, which helps new moms or moms-to-be during this exciting time. Having all of this information at your fingertips can help you keep up the good work and make better decisions regarding your health.

For me, personally, as a person who weight trains, I love having the muscle mass feature and body fat % feature since I am much more concerned with my body composition than my weight. I am also constantly trying to stay hydrated so being able to see my water % gives me the motivation I need to go refill my cup. Having a full body composition scale allows me to measure so much more than just the number on the scale. This scale also isn’t an eyesore with its sleek look and chrome finish, it is easy to tuck away or display.

Withings reports that two-thirds of their users having a weight loss goal reported losing weight within the first six months of installing their scales. They also found that 7 out of 10 users lost a significant amount of fat loss after tracking using their new Withings scale.

Blood Pressure Monitor

High blood pressure is the most preventable cause of cardiovascular disease and can often go without symptoms. The American Heart Association recommends home monitoring for anyone with hypertension in order to continuously reassess and make any necessary medication changes.  Now, with telehealth appointments becoming the new normal, having a blood pressure monitor system at home is of the utmost importance.

Developed alongside cardiologists, Withings blood pressure monitors are clinically validated, ensuring you are getting the most accurate results. The arm monitor is easy to use and only takes one push of a button. It then syncs to the Health Mate app via Bluetooth and WiFi, providing you with key information using international standards and explains your results in an easy to understand manner.

Both the BPM Connect and BPM Core offer blood pressure and heart rate readings immediately on both the device and the app. Both models allow you to share the information with your doctors so your doctor can also track your health. The BPM Core also offers ECG records and a digital stethoscope. A bonus perk of the BPM connect model is that it is FSA (flexible savings account) eligible.

For someone looking to invest in some useful technology that can help track their health goals as well as weight goals, the Withing products are of the highest quality and accuracy. Making an investment in your health is always a good idea but now, more than ever, having home monitoring products like this is so beneficial for maintaining your overall health. These products are also extremely useful to healthcare providers so they can track their patients remotely, conduct research studies as well as other wellness programs. Withings is a company whose products are exactly what we need as we embark on this new way of healthcare.

Source: diabetesdaily.com

Build Your COVID-19 Diabetes Go Bag

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

By Jordan Dakin

When it comes to being hospitalized in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, it’s natural to worry about that possibility and while we hope we can stay home at all costs, being prepared for any scenario is the best course of action. As a result, packing a go bag in the case of a hospital visit during this time is crucial.

Most important? Pack your bag with 15 days of supplies to be on the safe side. The CDC recommends up to 14 days of quarantine in some cases for those who have been exposed or infected depending on the time it takes for symptoms to develop, so being prepared for a lengthy hospital stay just in case is advised.

The nature of COVID-19 is tricky because it requires isolation and even if you’re hospitalized for something diabetes-related, you run the risk of being exposed to COVID-19 in a hospital setting. Make sure you have all you need as it will be difficult for loved ones to get items to you if you are in isolation during a hospital stay.

Antiemetic or Anti-Nausea Medication

Zofran or any other antiemetic medicine is helpful to have on hand in case you do contract a mild form of COVID-19 to keep yourself from throwing up, as this can be dangerous and lead to DKA (diabetic ketoacidosis).

Carbs and/or Glucose Tabs

This may seem obvious, but it is so important. Be sure to pack some hard candy, fruit snacks, fruit juice, glucose tabs and gels, and any other preferred fast-acting carbohydrates.

Beverage(s) to Prevent Dehydration

This could include sports drinks, water, or a mix-in hydration powder with little to no carbs.

Ketone Strips and Glucagon

If you are sick, BGs are harder to manage and DKA can be a dangerous reality if you’re needing more insulin than normal while having trouble keeping carbs or fluids down. As a result, you should test for ketones more frequently when you are sick.

Insulin, Syringes, Pen Needles and Pump Supplies

Having backup methods to administer insulin is important in the event of a pump malfunction.

Testing Supplies Like a Blood Glucose Meter, Lancing Device, Lancet and Test Strips, Plus Sensors If Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM)

In some hospitals, it’s been difficult for patients to have their glucose levels checked hourly because healthcare workers don’t have enough personal protective equipment (masks, gloves, etc) to go in and out of patient rooms that often. Because of this, people with diabetes should be prepared to do their own testing and monitoring of blood glucose (BG). Bringing a backup method for testing aside from your CGM is also recommended in case sensors fail or other malfunctions occur.

Alcohol Swabs, Hand Sanitizer, Bandaids and Medical Tape

Disinfecting and keeping things clean and protected during this time is especially important.

Any Necessary Medications and Other Important Medical Details

This includes an itemized list of medications you’re currently taking, allergies to medications you might have, your physician’s information and emergency contact information.

Personal Protective Equipment

Pack your own gloves and masks or face coverings just in case. If possible, it might also be good to remember to wear PPE when entering the hospital to prevent excessive exposure to COVID-19.

Other Necessary Electronics and Chargers

Be prepared and bring any necessary cables to keep phones and tablets charged, especially if you’re using any kind of smart device to help monitor BGs.

A hospital stay during this time might sound scary, but it is important to take care of yourself and be prepared. If you are sick and have gone into DKA as a result and can’t keep down fluids, hospitalization becomes necessary and waiting only makes DKA more severe and life-threatening.

Source: diabetesdaily.com

1 2 3

Search

+