Nasal Glucagon Is Easier to Use and More Preferred and Needs Less Effort to Administer Than Injectable Glucagon: User Perceptions of Glucagon Administration During Severe Hypoglycemia Simulation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate ease of use, user preference, and effort required to use nasal glucagon (NG) versus injectable glucagon needing reconstitution (IG) in simulations of severe hypoglycemia (SH)-a challenge for caregivers of a person with diabetes (PWD) in real-life. METHODS: In this randomized, crossover study, high-fidelity manikins placed in mock representative high-stress environments were used to simulate an SH rescue. Thirty-two trained (by PWDs) and 33 untrained participants attempted NG and IG administrations and then completed questionnaires regarding ease of use, preference, and workload for each device. RESULTS: More trained users agreed that NG was easy to use (87.1% vs 54.8%) and prepare (80.6% vs 51.6%) and had confidence to use NG correctly (93.5% vs 54.8%) than those who agreed the same for IG (P < .05). Untrained users reported similar differences, favoring NG in all parameters. In direct device comparison across all simulations, 80.6% of trained users and 93.5% of untrained users preferred NG over IG-a preference largely sustained regardless of the success or failure of administration. Among PWDs, 90.3% considered NG device as safer than IG during an SH event. In the assessment of workload required to administer glucagon, the weighted mean National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index scores were 37.8 for NG and 48.4 for IG (P = .0020). CONCLUSION: Participants in this study considered NG easier, more preferred, required less effort for administration, and more intuitive to use than reconstitutable IG, irrespective of whether there was prior training. NG improves the potential for successful administration of glucagon, better preparedness, and increased adoption of glucagon for SH rescue.

Cardiovascular risks in type 2 diabetes and the interpretation of cardiovascular outcome trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are at increased cardiovascular (CV) risk compared to subjects without diabetes, with some data estimating that CV disease (CVD) risk is doubled in these individuals. Additionally, CVD remains the leading cause of death in patients with T2D, so it is paramount to determine the relationship between these two diseases. PURPOSE: Older diabetes treatments have limited CV safety data. In 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration published guidance for manufacturers on antihyperglycemic agents, requiring studies to ensure CV safety of new therapies. Since then, manufacturers of many newer agents have conducted and published results from CV outcomes trials (CVOTs), with more trials due to publish soon. This review discusses the relationship between CVD and T2D and explores findings from the latest CVOTs of glucose-lowering agents to guide nurse practitioners in their prescribing patterns for patients with T2D. CONCLUSION: Patients with T2D are at high risk of CVD, so CV risk should be carefully considered when managing these patients, and CV risks and benefits of antidiabetic drugs should be included in prescribing decisions.

Reference Guide for Integrating Continuous Glucose Monitoring Into Clinical Practice.

PURPOSE: Large randomized trials have demonstrated the efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in persons with type 1 diabetes and insulin-treated type 2 diabetes. The purpose of this article is to provide basic knowledge about CGM technology, discuss the use of CGM data in clinical practice, and direct clinicians to online resources that provide comprehensive information and tools relevant to patient selection, education/training, and reimbursement. CONCLUSIONS: Effective use of CGM requires all members of the health care team to become knowledgeable and skilled in integrating CGM into their practices and in teaching their patients how to safely incorporate CGM use into their daily diabetes self-management.

Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonists for Type 2 Diabetes.

The incretin system has become an important target in the treatment of type 2 diabetes in recent years, and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) is of particular interest for its glucose-lowering effects. The physiological response to oral ingestion of nutrients, involving the incretin system, is reduced in some patients with type 2 diabetes but may be augmented by administration of GLP-1 receptor agonists. The GLP-1 receptor agonists currently approved in the United States for the treatment of type 2 diabetes include exenatide (administered twice daily), liraglutide and lixisenatide (administered once daily), and the once-weekly agents exenatide extended-release, albiglutide, and dulaglutide. These agents have been shown to reduce A1C (by ∼0.8-1.6%), body weight (by ∼1-3 kg), blood pressure, and lipids. GLP-1 receptor agonists are associated with a low risk of hypoglycemia, and the most common adverse effects are gastrointestinal. Proper patient selection and education can assist in achieving positive treatment outcomes.

Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors in Diverse Patient Populations With Type 2 Diabetes.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this review is to discuss the clinical evidence for dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and to better define their use in treating type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), including in special populations, such as the elderly. DPP-4 inhibitors are incretin-based therapies that can be used as monotherapy or in combination with other antidiabetes medications to treat T2DM. As monotherapy, DPP-4 inhibitors have demonstrated a modest and comparable glycated hemoglobin-lowering effect. As initial dual therapy with other antidiabetes agents, DPP-4 inhibitors significantly improved glycated hemoglobin when compared with monotherapy arms. Similarly, in triple combinations, DPP-4 inhibitors consistently provided additive glycemic benefits. In patients who were continuing insulin, glycemic parameters were improved with the addition of a DPP-4 inhibitor, and they required less insulin uptitration. In clinical trials, the overall occurrence of adverse events was similar between DPP-4 inhibitor groups and controls, and a low occurrence of hypoglycemia was observed, except when used in combination with a sulfonylurea. A neutral effect on weight was maintained, even in combination with insulin. Similar to outcomes observed in younger patients, DPP-4 inhibitors significantly improved glycemic efficacy in older patients, without increasing the risk for hypoglycemia. Efficacy and safety in patients with renal insufficiency are also documented. CONCLUSION: DPP-4 inhibitors are therapeutically beneficial for a diverse population of patients with T2DM, including elderly patients, based on demonstrated efficacy, tolerability, and a low risk for hypoglycemia.

Glucuretic effects and renal safety of dapagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Dapagliflozin is a selective sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor approved as a treatment for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the United States, the European Union and other countries. Dapagliflozin increases renal glucose excretion in an insulin-independent manner, and its mechanism of action is complementary to those of other antidiabetes medications. When used as monotherapy or in combination with other oral antidiabetes medications or insulin, dapagliflozin improves glycemic measures in patients with T2DM. Dapagliflozin treatment is also associated with weight reduction and a decrease in blood pressure, both of which may be beneficial in patients with T2DM. Because of its mechanism of action, dapagliflozin has a low intrinsic propensity to cause hypoglycemia. Overall, dapagliflozin is well tolerated, with the frequency of most adverse events similar to that seen with placebo. Cases of genital infections and, in some studies, urinary tract infections have been more frequent in dapagliflozin-treated groups compared with placebo groups. In the clinical development program, more cases of newly diagnosed bladder cancer were reported for patients treated with dapagliflozin (0.17%) compared with placebo or comparator (0.03%). Although there were not enough cases to determine causality, dapagliflozin should not be used in patients with bladder cancer and should be used with caution in patients with a history of bladder cancer. Dapagliflozin may decrease glomerular filtration rate (GFR), especially in elderly patients and patients with impaired renal function. Renal function should be monitored before initiation of dapagliflozin. Dapagliflozin should not be used in patients with an estimated GFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m(2). No cardiovascular safety signals have been detected for dapagliflozin, and a long-term cardiovascular outcomes study is ongoing. Evidence from clinical trials suggests that dapagliflozin is a promising new treatment option for T2DM.

Short commentary on empagliflozin and its potential clinical impact.

Sodium glucose cotransporter type 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are a new class of drug developed to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). They target the kidney by reducing renal glucose reabsorption and promoting urinary glucose excretion, which reduces hyperglycemia in individuals with T2DM. The SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin has gained approval in the EU and in the USA for the treatment of adults with T2DM (there is no current indication in type 1 diabetes). Empagliflozin has shown a good efficacy and safety profile from clinical trials when given as monotherapy, and as an add-on therapy to other glucose-lowering agents. This short commentary reviews the key efficacy and safety data from empagliflozin phase III trials and examines the potential role this agent may have in the management of T2DM.

Safe and Efficacious Use of Automated Bolus Advisors in Individuals Treated With Multiple Daily Insulin Injection (MDI) Therapy: Lessons Learned From the Automated Bolus Advisor Control and Usability Study (ABACUS).

Numerous studies have shown that use of integrated automated bolus advisors (BAs) provides significant benefits to individuals using insulin pump devices, including improved glycemic control and greater treatment satisfaction. Within the past few years, BA devices have been developed specifically for individuals treated with multiple daily insulin injection (MDI) therapy; however, many clinicians who treat these individuals may be unfamiliar with insulin pump therapy and, thus, BA use. Findings from the Automated Bolus Advisor Control and Usability Study (ABACUS) revealed that BA use can be efficacious and clinically meaningful in MDI therapy, and that most patients are willing and able to use this technology appropriately when adequate clinical support is provided. The purpose of this article is to review key learnings from ABACUS and provide practical advice for initiating BA use and monitoring therapy.

Clinical implications of canagliflozin treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes.

IN BRIEF Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are a new class of antihyperglycemic agents that lower blood glucose levels in patients with type 2 diabetes. SGLT2 inhibitors have an insulin-independent mechanism of action, acting to inhibit the reabsorption of glucose in the kidney, which leads to increases in urinary glucose excretion in individuals with elevated blood glucose levels. This article provides an overview of the role of the kidney in type 2 diabetes, describes the rationale for renal SGLT2 as a new target for glycemic control, and focuses on the clinical implications of incorporating the SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin into type 2 diabetes treatment regimens based on data from phase 3 studies.

Use of diabetes data management software reports by health care providers, patients with diabetes, and caregivers improves accuracy and efficiency of data analysis and interpretation compared with traditional logbook data: first results of the Accu-Chek Connect Reports Utility and Efficiency Study (ACCRUES).

We assessed users' proficiency and efficiency in identifying and interpreting self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG), insulin, and carbohydrate intake data using data management software reports compared with standard logbooks. This prospective, self-controlled, randomized study enrolled insulin-treated patients with diabetes (PWDs) (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII] and multiple daily insulin injection [MDI] therapy), patient caregivers [CGVs]) and health care providers (HCPs) who were naïve to diabetes data management computer software. Six paired clinical cases (3 CSII, 3 MDI) and associated multiple-choice questions/answers were reviewed by diabetes specialists and presented to participants via a web portal in both software report (SR) and traditional logbook (TL) formats. Participant response time and accuracy were documented and assessed. Participants completed a preference questionnaire at study completion. All participants (54 PWDs, 24 CGVs, 33 HCPs) completed the cases. Participants achieved greater accuracy (assessed by percentage of accurate answers) using the SR versus TL formats: PWDs, 80.3 (13.2)% versus 63.7 (15.0)%, P < .0001; CGVs, 84.6 (8.9)% versus 63.6 (14.4)%, P < .0001; HCPs, 89.5 (8.0)% versus 66.4 (12.3)%, P < .0001. Participants spent less time (minutes) with each case using the SR versus TL formats: PWDs, 8.6 (4.3) versus 19.9 (12.2), P < .0001; CGVs, 7.0 (3.5) versus 15.5 (11.8), P = .0005; HCPs, 6.7 (2.9) versus 16.0 (12.0), P < .0001. The majority of participants preferred using the software reports versus logbook data. Use of the Accu-Chek Connect Online software reports enabled PWDs, CGVs, and HCPs, naïve to diabetes data management software, to identify and utilize key diabetes information with significantly greater accuracy and efficiency compared with traditional logbook information. Use of SRs was preferred over logbooks.

Results that matter: structured vs. unstructured self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes.

Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is one component of diabetes management. SMBG presents information about current glycemic status and provides the ability to obtain immediate feedback regarding the impact of behavioral and pharmacological interventions on glucose levels. However, SMBG is useful only when the glucose information is understood correctly, data are accurately interpreted, and results prompt appropriate therapeutic actions. The International Diabetes Federation (IDF) recently published guidelines for SMBG use in non-insulin treated people with diabetes, recommending that SMBG should be used only when patients and/or their clinicians possess the ability and willingness to incorporate SMBG monitoring and therapy adjustment into their diabetes care plan. If SMBG is used, the IDF also recommends that structured SMBG be performed utilizing defined regimens to meet individual needs. Structured SMBG can be performed as daily glucose profiles that are representative of daily glucose excursions. Measuring preprandial/postprandial blood glucose (bG) levels on consecutive or alternating days ("testing in pairs") also provides impactful glucose information for daily diabetes management. This article reviews recent studies that appropriately utilized structured SMBG as an integral component of comprehensive diabetes management and discusses how their findings support the IDF recommendations. Our goal is to help clinicians make more informed decisions about the value and utility of SMBG in diabetes management.

A structured self-monitoring of blood glucose approach in type 2 diabetes encourages more frequent, intensive, and effective physician interventions: results from the STeP study.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated how a structured patient/physician self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) intervention influenced the timing, frequency, and effectiveness of primary care physicians' treatment changes with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients over 12 months. METHODS: The Structured Testing Program (STeP) study was a cluster-randomized, multicenter trial with 483 poorly controlled, insulin-naive T2DM subjects. Primary care practices were randomized to the Active Control Group (ACG) or the Structured Testing Group (STG), the latter of which included quarterly review of structured SMBG results. STG patients used a paper tool that graphs seven-point glucose profiles over 3 consecutive days; physicians received a treatment algorithm based on SMBG patterns. Impact of structured SMBG on physician treatment modification recommendations (TMRs) and glycemic outcomes was examined. RESULTS: More STG than ACG patients received a TMR at each study visit (P < 0.0001). Of patients who received at least one TMR, STG patients demonstrated a greater reduction in glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) than ACG patients (-1.2% vs. -0.8%, P < 0.03). Patients with a baseline HbA1c ≥8.5% who received a TMR at the Month 1 visit experienced greater reductions in HbA1c (P = 0.002) than patients without an initial TMR. More STG than ACG patients were started on incretins (P < 0.01) and on thiazolidinediones (P = 0.004). The number of visits with a TMR was unrelated to HbA1c change over time. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-provided SMBG data contribute to glycemic improvement when blood glucose patterns are easy to detect, and well-trained physicians take timely action. Collaborative use of structured SMBG data leads to earlier, more frequent, and more effective TMRs for poorly controlled, non-insulin-treated T2DM subjects.

Structured self-monitoring of blood glucose significantly reduces A1C levels in poorly controlled, noninsulin-treated type 2 diabetes: results from the Structured Testing Program study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of structured blood glucose testing in poorly controlled, noninsulin-treated type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This 12-month, prospective, cluster-randomized, multicenter study recruited 483 poorly controlled (A1C ≥ 7.5%), insulin-naïve type 2 diabetic subjects from 34 primary care practices in the U.S. Practices were randomized to an active control group (ACG) with enhanced usual care or a structured testing group (STG) with enhanced usual care and at least quarterly use of structured self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). STG patients and physicians were trained to use a paper tool to collect/interpret 7-point glucose profiles over 3 consecutive days. The primary end point was A1C level measured at 12 months. RESULTS: The 12-month intent-to-treat analysis (ACG, n = 227; STG, n = 256) showed significantly greater reductions in mean (SE) A1C in the STG compared with the ACG: -1.2% (0.09) vs. -0.9% (0.10); Δ = -0.3%; P = 0.04. Per protocol analysis (ACG, n = 161; STG, n = 130) showed even greater mean (SE) A1C reductions in the STG compared with the ACG: -1.3% (0.11) vs. -0.8% (0.11); Δ = -0.5%; P < 0.003. Significantly more STG patients received a treatment change recommendation at the month 1 visit compared with ACG patients, regardless of the patient's initial baseline A1C level: 179 (75.5%) vs. 61 (28.0%); <0.0001. Both STG and ACG patients displayed significant (P < 0.0001) improvements in general well-being (GWB). CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate use of structured SMBG significantly improves glycemic control and facilitates more timely/aggressive treatment changes in noninsulin-treated type 2 diabetes without decreasing GWB.

The value of episodic, intensive blood glucose monitoring in non-insulin treated persons with Type 2 Diabetes: design of the Structured Testing Program (STeP) study, a cluster-randomised, clinical trial [NCT00674986].

BACKGROUND: The value and utility of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in non-insulin treated T2DM has yet to be clearly determined. Findings from studies in this population have been inconsistent, due mainly to design differences and limitations, including the prescribed frequency and timing of SMBG, role of the patient and physician in responding to SMBG results, inclusion criteria that may contribute to untoward floor effects, subject compliance, and cross-arm contamination. We have designed an SMBG intervention study that attempts to address these issues. METHODS/DESIGN: The Structured Testing Program (STeP) study is a 12-month, cluster-randomised, multi-centre clinical trial to evaluate whether poorly controlled (HbA1c >or= 7.5%), non-insulin treated T2DM patients will benefit from a comprehensive, integrated physician/patient intervention using structured SMBG in US primary care practices. Thirty-four practices will be recruited and randomly assigned to an active control group (ACG) that receives enhanced usual care or to an enhanced usual care group plus structured SMBG (STG). A total of 504 patients will be enrolled; eligible patients at each site will be randomly selected using a defined protocol. Anticipated attrition of 20% will yield a sample size of at least 204 per arm, which will provide a 90% power to detect a difference of at least 0.5% in change from baseline in HbA1c values, assuming a common standard deviation of 1.5%. Differences in timing and degree of treatment intensification, cost effectiveness, and changes in patient self-management behaviours, mood, and quality of life (QOL) over time will also be assessed. Analysis of change in HbA1c and other dependent variables over time will be performed using both intent-to-treat and per protocol analyses. Trial results will be available in 2010. DISCUSSION: The intervention and trial design builds upon previous research by emphasizing appropriate and collaborative use of SMBG by both patients and physicians. Utilization of per protocol and intent-to-treat analyses facilitates a comprehensive assessment of the intervention. Use of practice site cluster-randomisation reduces the potential for intervention contamination, and inclusion criteria (HbA1c >or= 7.5%) reduces the possibility of floor effects. Inclusion of multiple dependent variables allows us to assess the broader impact of the intervention, including changes in patient and physician attitudes and behaviours. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials NCT00674986.

Effective use of paired testing in type 2 diabetes: practical applications in clinical practice.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to discuss practical approaches to the use of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in clinical practice using paired glucose testing. A rationale for SMBG use and innovative tools for data collection and analysis are presented. Method Health care professionals from various medical specialties collaborated to review current evidence regarding the value and utility of SMBG and to formulate professional opinions regarding use of SMBG. The literature review included key SMBG studies from 2002 through 2009. Established guidelines, position papers, and other evidence were also reviewed for this report. Reference Manager Software was used to search ISI Web of Science, PubMed, and Z39.50 site databases. RESULTS: Although the utility of SMBG in non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes remains controversial, a recent report from the International Diabetes Federation recommends SMBG use in this population if it is used to educate/motivate individuals and/or monitor and adjust therapy. Health care providers must develop strategies to use SMBG in ways that address these criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Paired SMBG (testing before/after specific events) promotes diabetes knowledge and self-management skills and facilitates assessment of the impact of behavioral changes, medical nutrition therapy, and pharmacologic interventions on glycemic levels. New tools have been developed to assist in using paired testing in clinical practice.

Incretin mimetics and DPP-IV inhibitors: new paradigms for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

Incretin mimetics are a new class of pharmacological agents with multiple antihyperglycemic actions that mimic several of the actions of incretin hormones originating in the gut, such as glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1. Dipeptidyl peptidase-IV (DPP-IV) inhibitors suppress the degradation of many peptides, including GLP-1, thereby extending their bioactivity. These agents seem to have multiple mechanisms of action for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), including some or all the following: enhancement of glucose-dependent insulin secretion, suppression of inappropriately elevated glucagon secretion, slowing of gastric emptying, and decreased food intake. Exenatide (BYETTA) is the first incretin mimetic approved for clinical use by the US Food and Drug Administration. In phase 3 clinical trials, exenatide reduced HbA(1c) by approximately 1% and body weight by approximately 2 kg in T2DM patients failing to achieve glycemic control with metformin and/or a sulfonylurea, with mild-to-moderate nausea the most common side effect. Several GLP-1 analogues and DPP-IV inhibitors are in late-stage clinical testing and may soon become available for treating T2DM patients. The use of these agents may provide an opportunity to bring about new improvements in diabetes care.