The use of glucose sensors to triage post-discharge follow-up was investigated among hospital inpatients with type 2 diabetes. Feasibility, utility and patient satisfaction with this model of care were studied. Feasibility was 36.5%, with 90/198 (45.5%) inpatients discharged with glucose sensors but 9.0% unable to use glucose sensors effectively. Follow-up plans were altered in 76.3% of the patients able to use the sensor technology. Patient satisfaction was high and was improved on follow-up after 6 months.

OBJECTIVE: To describe glucose homeostasis disturbances (dysglycaemia) in very low-birthweight infants (<1500 g) during the admission period and explore associated risk factors.
METHODS: The LIGHT (very low-birthweight infants - glucose and hormonal profile over time) study was a prospective observational cohort study that included 49 very low-birthweight infants admitted to the tertiary neonatal intensive care unit in Umeå, Sweden, during 2016-2019. All glucose concentrations (n = 3515) sampled during the admission period were registered.
RESULTS: Hyperglycaemia >10 mmol/L and hypoglycaemia <2.6 mmol/L were registered in 63% and 55% of the infants, respectively. Onset of dysglycaemia occurred almost exclusively in the first postnatal week. Hyperglycaemia followed 15% of corticosteroid doses given; all were preceded by pre-existing hyperglycaemia. Pre-existing hyperglycaemia was found in 66.7% of hyperglycaemic infants who received inotrope treatment. Upon commencement, 72.5% of antimicrobial treatments given were neither preceded nor followed by hyperglycaemia.
CONCLUSIONS: Dysglycaemia was common in very low-birthweight infants. Daily means of glucose concentrations seemed to follow a postmenstrual age-dependent pattern, decreasing towards term age suggesting a postmenstrual age-dependent developmental mechanism. The primary mechanism causing hyperglycaemia was independent of sepsis, and corticosteroid and inotrope treatments. No hypoglycaemia was registered during ongoing insulin treatment.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work was to examine the impact of hypoglycaemia on daily functioning among adults with type 1 diabetes or insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, using the novel Hypo-METRICS app.
METHODS: For 70 consecutive days, 594 adults (type 1 diabetes, n=274; type 2 diabetes, n=320) completed brief morning and evening Hypo-METRICS \'check-ins\' about their experienced hypoglycaemia and daily functioning. Participants wore a blinded glucose sensor (i.e. data unavailable to the participants) for the study duration. Days and nights with or without person-reported hypoglycaemia (PRH) and/or sensor-detected hypoglycaemia (SDH) were compared using multilevel regression models.
RESULTS: Participants submitted a mean ± SD of 86.3±12.5% morning and 90.8±10.7% evening check-ins. For both types of diabetes, SDH alone had no significant associations with the changes in daily functioning scores. However, daytime and night-time PRH (with or without SDH) were significantly associated with worsening of energy levels, mood, cognitive functioning, negative affect and fear of hypoglycaemia later that day or while asleep. In addition, night-time PRH (with or without SDH) was significantly associated with worsening of sleep quality (type 1 and type 2 diabetes) and memory (type 2 diabetes). Further, daytime PRH (with or without SDH), was associated with worsening of fear of hyperglycaemia while asleep (type 1 diabetes), memory (type 1 and type 2 diabetes) and social functioning (type 2 diabetes).
CONCLUSIONS: This prospective, real-world study reveals impact on several domains of daily functioning following PRH but not following SDH alone. These data suggest that the observed negative impact is mainly driven by subjective awareness of hypoglycaemia (i.e. PRH), through either symptoms or sensor alerts/readings and/or the need to take action to prevent or treat episodes.

OBJECTIVE: The relationship between pre-meal insulin type, exercise timing and the risk of postprandial exercise-induced hypoglycaemia in people living with type 1 diabetes is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the effects of exercise timing (60 vs 120 min post meal) and different insulin types (aspart vs ultra-rapid aspart) on hypoglycaemic risk.
METHODS: This was a four-way crossover randomised trial including 40 individuals with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injections (mean HbA1c 56 mmol/mol [7.4%]). Participants, who were recruited from the Montreal Clinical Research Institute, undertook 60 min cycling sessions (60% of V ˙ O 2 peak ) after breakfast (60 min [EX60min] or 120 min [EX120min] post meal) with 50% of their usual insulin dose (aspart or ultra-rapid aspart). Eligibility criteria included age ≥18 years old, clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes for at least 1 year and HbA1c ≤80 mmol/mol (9.5%). Participants were allocated using sequentially numbered, opaque sealed envelopes. Participants were masked to their group assignment, and each participant was allocated a unique identification number to ensure anonymisation. The primary outcome was change in blood glucose levels between exercise onset and nadir.
RESULTS: Prior to exercise onset, time spent in hyperglycaemia was lower for EX60min vs EX120min (time >10.0 mmol/l: 56.6% [1.2-100%] vs 78.0% [52.7-97.9%]; p<0.001). The glucose reduction between exercise onset and nadir was less pronounced with EX60min vs EX120min (-3.8±2.7 vs -4.7±2.5 mmol/l; p<0.001). A similar number of hypoglycaemic events occurred during both exercise timings. Blood glucose between exercise onset and nadir decreased less with ultra-rapid aspart compared with aspart (-4.1±2.3 vs -4.4±2.8 mmol/l; p=0.037). While a similar number of hypoglycaemic events during exercise were observed, less post-exercise hypoglycaemia occurred with ultra-rapid aspart (n=0, 0%, vs n=15, 38%; p=0.003). No interactions between insulin types and exercise timings were found.
CONCLUSIONS: EX60min blunted the pre-exercise glucose increase following breakfast and was associated with a smaller glucose reduction during exercise. Ultra-rapid aspart led to a smaller blood glucose reduction during exercise and might be associated with diminished post-exercise hypoglycaemia.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03659799 FUNDING: This study was funded by Novo Nordisk Canada.

BACKGROUND: Older patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) have an increased risk of hypoglycaemic episodes when using sulphonylureas or insulin. In the Netherlands, guidelines exist for reducing glucose-lowering medication in older patients. However, evidence is lacking that a medication reduction in older patients can be safely pursued. Here, we will examine if promoting the deprescribing of insulin/sulphonylureas with a deprescribing programme (DPP) in general practice affects T2D-complications in older overtreated patients.
METHODS: We will perform a 1:1 cluster randomised controlled trial in 86 general practices in the Netherlands. The DPP will consist of education sessions with general practitioners and practice nurses about reducing glucose-lowering medication in older patients (≥ 70 years). Topics of the sessions include the necessity of deprescribing, tools to initiate deprescribing and strategies to discuss deprescribing with patients (shared decision making). The DPP further includes a support programme with practice visits. The study will employ a selection tool to identify possibly overtreated older patients from the electronic medical records of the general practitioner. Eligibility for enrolment in the study will be based on HbA1c targets indicated by the Dutch guidelines, which depend on age, diabetes duration, presence of frailty, and life expectancy. The control group will provide usual care. We aim to include 406 patients. The follow-up period will be 2 years. For the primary outcome, the effect of the DPP on T2D-complications will be assessed by counting the cumulative incidence of events related to under- and overtreatment in T2D as registered in the electronic medical records. We shall perform an intention-to-treat analysis and an analysis including only patients for whom deprescribing was initiated. The implementation of the DPP in general practice will be evaluated quantitatively and qualitatively using the Extended Normalisation Process Theory (ENPT) and the Reach, Efficacy - Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) model. Other secondary outcomes include quality of life, cognitive functioning, events related to overtreatment or undertreatment, biomarkers of health, amount of blood glucose-lowering medication prescriptions, and cost-effectiveness.
CONCLUSIONS: This study will provide insight into the safety and feasibility of a programme aimed at deprescribing sulphonylureas/insulin in older people with T2D who are treated in general practice.
BACKGROUND: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN50008265 , registered 09 March, 2023.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of a fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U/mL plus lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) with premixed insulin, insulin degludec plus insulin aspart (IDegAsp), in Chinese people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) suboptimally controlled with oral antidiabetic drug(s) (OADs).
METHODS: In Soli-D, a 24-week, multicentre, open-label, study, insulin-naïve adults were randomized 1:1 to once-daily injections of iGlarLixi (n = 291) or IDegAsp (n = 291), with continued metformin ± sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline to week 24. Key secondary endpoints included superiority in HbA1c change and body weight (BW) change at week 24. Hypoglycaemia rates were also assessed.
RESULTS: At week 24, iGlarLixi showed non-inferiority and superiority over IDegAsp in HbA1c reduction (least squares [LS] mean difference: -0.20 [95% confidence interval {CI}: -0.33, -0.07]; P < .001 for non-inferiority; [97.5% CI: -0.35, -0.05]; P = .003 for superiority). iGlarLixi decreased BW and IDegAsp increased BW from baseline to week 24, with a statistically significant LS mean difference of -1.49 kg in favour of iGlarLixi (97.5% CI: -2.32, -0.66; P < .001). Event rates (per person-year) for American Diabetes Association (ADA) Level 1, 2 or 3 hypoglycaemia were lower for iGlarLixi (1.90) versus IDegAsp (2.72) (relative risk: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.52, 0.98). No ADA Level 3 hypoglycaemia or unexpected safety findings were reported.
CONCLUSIONS: In Chinese people with T2D suboptimally controlled with OADs, once-daily iGlarLixi provided better glycaemic control with BW benefit and lower hypoglycaemia event rates versus IDegAsp.

OBJECTIVE: For end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients with diabetes on haemodialysis, diabetes control is difficult to achieve. Hypoglycaemia is a major problem in these frailty subjects. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices appear therefore to be a good tool to help patients monitor their glycaemic control and to help practitioners optimize treatment. We aimed to compare the laboratory value of Hba1c with the sensor-estimated value of Hba1c (= glucose management indicator, GMI) in ESRD patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) (with or without insulin treatment) on haemodialysis. Secondly, we aimed to identify CGM-derived monitoring parameters [time in range, time in hypo/hyperglycaemia, glycaemic variability (coefficient of variation, CV)] to identify patients at risk of frequent hypo- or hyperglycaemia.
METHODS: The FSLPRO-DIAL pilot study (NCT04641650) was a prospective monocentric cohort study including 29 subjects with T2D who achieve the protocol. Inclusion criteria were: age ≥ 18 years, haemodialysis duration for at least 3 months, type 2 diabetes with no change in treatment for at least 3 months. Demographic data and blood sample were collected at the day of inclusion. Freestyle Libre pro IQ sensor (blinded CGM) was inserted for 14 days. After this period, all CGMs data were collected and analysed.
RESULTS: Data were available for 27 patients. Mean age was 73 ± 10, mean BMI 27.2 kg/m2, mean duration of diabetes 16.9 years and mean dialysis duration 2.9 years. Twenty-four subjects were treated with insulin. Mean HbA1c was 6.6% (SD 1.2), and mean GMI was 6.7% (SD 0.9) (no significant difference, p = 0.3). Twelve subjects (44.4%) had a discordance between HbA1c and GMI of < 0.5%, 11 (40.8%) had a discordance between 0.5 and 1%, and only 4 (14.8%) had a discordance of > 1%. Mean time in range (70-180 mg/dl) was 71.9%, mean time below range (< 70 mg/dl) was 5.6%, and mean time above range (> 180 mg/dl) was 22.1%. Mean CV was 31.8%. For 13 out of 27 patients, we reduced antidiabetic treatment by stopping treatments or reducing insulin doses.
CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, there was no global significant difference between HbA1c and GMI in this particular cohort with very well-controlled diabetes. However, the use of the sensor enabled us to identify an excessive time in hypoglycemia in this fragile population and to adapt their treatment.

BACKGROUND: Hyperglycaemia is common in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Glycaemic monitoring and effective glycaemic control with insulin are crucial in the ICU to improve patient outcomes. However, glycaemic control and insulin use vary between ICU patients and hypo- and hyperglycaemia occurs. Therefore, we aim to provide contemporary data on glycaemic control and management, and associated outcomes, in adult ICU patients. We hypothesise that the occurrence of hypoglycaemia in acutely admitted ICU patients is lower than that of hyperglycaemia.
METHODS: We will conduct a bi-centre cohort study of 300 acutely admitted adult ICU patients. Routine data will be collected retrospectively at baseline (ICU admission) and daily during ICU stay up to a maximum of 30 days. The primary outcome will be the number of patients with hypoglycaemia during their ICU stay. Secondary outcomes will be occurrence of severe hypoglycaemia, occurrence of hyperglycaemia, time below blood glucose target range, time above target range, all-cause mortality at Day 30, number of days alive without life support at Day 30 and number of days alive and out of hospital at Day 30. Process outcomes include the number of in-ICU days, glucose measurements (number of measurements and method) and use of insulin (including route of administration and dosage). All statistical analyses will be descriptive.
CONCLUSIONS: This cohort study will provide a contemporary overview of glucose evaluation and management practices in adult ICU patients and, thus, highlight potential areas for improvement through future clinical trials in this area.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the differential association of risk factors with severe and non-severe hypoglycaemia.
METHODS: The Hypoglycaemia Assessment Tool study evaluated the risk of hypoglycaemia over a 4-week period in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) on insulin in 24 countries. Negative binomial regressions were applied to examine the associations of several risk factors with severe and non-severe hypoglycaemia.
RESULTS: The median age was 41 years in 5949 patients with T1D and 62 years in 12 914 patients with T2D. The 4-week rates of non-severe hypoglycaemic were 5.57 and 1.40 episodes per person in T1D and T2D, respectively; the corresponding rates for severe hypoglycaemia were 0.94 and 0.30. The excess risk was 42% higher for severe than non-severe hypoglycaemia in females versus males with T2D; 27% higher in patients with T2D with versus without a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM); and 47% lower in patients with T1D with versus without an insulin pump. The excess risk also differed across geographical areas and was marginally lower for severe than non-severe hypoglycaemia for higher values of HbA1c in patients with T2D. Associations with severity of hypoglycaemia were not different for age, diabetes and insulin therapy duration, previous hypoglycaemic episodes and insulin regimen.
CONCLUSIONS: The risk of severe versus non-severe hypoglycaemia differs in patients with T1D and T2D; sex, the use of a CGM and insulin pump, and geographical areas were differently associated with one type of hypoglycaemia than the other.

BACKGROUND: Reporting of hypoglycaemia and its impact in clinical studies is often retrospective and subject to recall bias. We developed the Hypo-METRICS app to measure the daily physical, psychological, and social impact of hypoglycaemia in adults with type 1 and insulin-treated type 2 diabetes in real-time using ecological momentary assessment (EMA). To help assess its utility, we aimed to determine Hypo-METRICS app completion rates and factors associated with completion.
METHODS: Adults with diabetes recruited into the Hypo-METRICS study were given validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at baseline. Over 10 weeks, they wore a blinded continuous glucose monitor (CGM), and were asked to complete three daily EMAs about hypoglycaemia and aspects of daily functioning, and two weekly sleep and productivity PROMs on the bespoke Hypo-METRICS app. We conducted linear regression to determine factors associated with app engagement, assessed by EMA and PROM completion rates and CGM metrics.
RESULTS: In 602 participants (55% men; 54% type 2 diabetes; median(IQR) age 56 (45-66) years; diabetes duration 19 (11-27) years; HbA1c 57 (51-65) mmol/mol), median(IQR) overall app completion rate was 91 (84-96)%, ranging from 90 (81-96)%, 89 (80-94)% and 94(87-97)% for morning, afternoon and evening check-ins, respectively. Older age, routine CGM use, greater time below 3.0 mmol/L, and active sensor time were positively associated with app completion.
CONCLUSIONS: High app completion across all app domains and participant characteristics indicates the Hypo-METRICS app is an acceptable research tool for collecting detailed data on hypoglycaemia frequency and impact in real-time.