OBJECTIVETo describe trends of primary efficacy and safety outcomes of islet transplantation in type 1 diabetes recipients with severe hypoglycemia from the Collaborative Islet Transplant Registry (CITR) from 1999 to 2010.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSA total of 677 islet transplant-alone or islet-after-kidney recipients with type 1 diabetes in the CITR were analyzed for five primary efficacy outcomes and overall safety to identify any differences by early (1999–2002), mid (2003–2006), or recent (2007–2010) transplant era based on annual follow-up to 5 years.RESULTSInsulin independence at 3 years after transplant improved from 27% in the early era (1999–2002, n = 214) to 37% in the mid (2003–2006, n = 255) and to 44% in the most recent era (2007–2010, n = 208; P = 0.006 for years-by-era; P = 0.01 for era alone). C-peptide ≥0.3 ng/mL, indicative of islet graft function, was retained longer in the most recent era (P < 0.001). Reduction of HbA1c and resolution of severe hypoglycemia exhibited enduring long-term effects. Fasting blood glucose stabilization also showed improvements in the most recent era. There were also modest reductions in the occurrence of adverse events. The islet reinfusion rate was lower: 48% by 1 year in 2007–2010 vs. 60–65% in 1999–2006 (P < 0.01). Recipients that ever achieved insulin-independence experienced longer duration of islet graft function (P < 0.001).CONCLUSIONSThe CITR shows improvement in primary efficacy and safety outcomes of islet transplantation in recipients who received transplants in 2007–2010 compared with those in 1999–2006, with fewer islet infusions and adverse events per recipient.

Currently, the major indications for solitary islet transplantation are recurrent severe hypoglycemia and labile glucose control. Quantifying these problems remains subjective. We have developed a scoring system for both hypoglycemia and glycemic lability, established normative data, and used them in patients who have undergone islet transplantation. A composite hypoglycemic score (HYPO score) was devised based on the frequency, severity, and degree of unawareness of the hypoglycemia. In addition, using 4 weeks of glucose records, a lability index (LI) was calculated based on the change in glucose levels over time and compared with a clinical assessment of glycemic lability. A mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE) was also calculated based on 2 consecutive days of seven readings each day. These scores were determined in 100 randomly selected subjects with type 1 diabetes from our general clinic to serve as a control group and in patients before and after islet transplantation. The mean age of the control diabetic subjects was 38.4 ؎ 1.3 years (؎SE), with a duration of diabetes of 21.5 ؎ 1.1 years. The median HYPO score in the control subjects was 143 (25th to 75th interquartile range: 46 -423). The LI in the diabetic control subjects was 223 (25th to 75th interquartile range: 130 -329 mmol/l 2 /h ⅐ week ؊1 ). The LI correlated much more closely than the MAGE with the clinical assessment of lability. A HYPO score of >1,047 (90th percentile) or an LI >433 mmol/l 2 / h ⅐ week ؊1 (90th percentile) indicated serious problems with hypoglycemia or glycemic lability, respectively. The islet transplant patients (n ‫؍‬ 51) were 42.1 ؎ 1.4 years old, with a duration of diabetes of 25.7 ؎ 1.4 years. Islet transplant patients had a mean HYPO score of 1,234 ؎ 184 pretransplant, which was significantly higher than that of the control subjects (P < 0.001), which became negligible posttransplantation with the elimination of hypoglycemia. The median LI pretransplant was 497 mmol/l 2 /h ⅐ week ؊1 (25th to 75th interquartile range: 330 -692), significantly higher than that of control subjects (P < 0.001), and fell to 40 (25th to 75th interquartile range: 14 -83) within a month after the final transplant. In those who had lost graft function, the LI rose again. The HYPO score and LI provide measures of the extent of problems with hypoglycemia and glycemic lability, respectively, complement the clinical assessment of the problems with glucose control before islet transplantation, and will allow comparison of selection of subjects for transplants between centers. Diabetes 53:955-962, 2004 P atients with type 1 diabetes have to balance the risks of long-term hyperglycemia and its consequences versus the acute risk of hypoglycemia. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial has confirmed that achieving strict glycemic control is worthwhile but comes with the price of a threefold increased risk of severe hypoglycemia (1). In addition to long-term consequences (2), such hypoglycemia comes with costs in the short term as evidenced...

Ketoconazole is an effective drug with acceptable side effects. It should be used under close liver enzyme monitoring. Hepatotoxicity is usually mild and resolves after drug withdrawal.

Gitelman's syndrome (GS) is a rare, autosomal recessive, salt-losing tubulopathy caused by mutations in the SLC12A3 gene, which encodes the thiazide-sensitive NaCl cotransporter (NCC). Because 18 to 40% of suspected GS patients carry only one SLC12A3 mutant allele, large genomic rearrangements may account for unidentified mutations. Here, we directly sequenced genomic DNA from a large cohort of 448 unrelated patients suspected of having GS. We found 172 distinct mutations, of which 100 were unreported previously. In 315 patients (70%), we identified two mutations; in 81 patients (18%), we identified one; and in 52 patients (12%), we did not detect a mutation. In 88 patients, we performed a search for large rearrangements by multiplex ligationdependent probe amplification (MLPA) and found nine deletions and two duplications in 24 of the 51 heterozygous patients. A second technique confirmed each rearrangement. Based on the breakpoints of seven deletions, nonallelic homologous recombination by Alu sequences and nonhomologous end-joining probably favor these intragenic deletions. In summary, missense mutations account for approximately 59% of the mutations in Gitelman's syndrome, and there is a predisposition to large rearrangements (6% of our cases) caused by the presence of repeated sequences within the SLC12A3 gene.

Problematic hypoglycemia, defined as two or more episodes per year of severe hypoglycemia or as one episode associated with impaired awareness of hypoglycemia, extreme glycemic lability, or major fear and maladaptive behavior, is a challenge, especially for patients with long-standing type 1 diabetes. Individualized therapy for such patients should include a composite target: optimal glucose control without problematic hypoglycemia. Therefore, we propose a tiered, four-stage algorithm based on evidence of efficacy given the limitations of educational, technological, and transplant interventions. All patients with problematic hypoglycemia should undergo structured or hypoglycemia-specific education programs (stage 1). Glycemic and hypoglycemia treatment targets should be individualized and reassessed every 3–6 months. If targets are not met, one diabetes technology—continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion or continuous glucose monitoring—should be added (stage 2). For patients with continued problematic hypoglycemia despite education (stage 1) and one diabetes technology (stage 2), sensor-augmented insulin pumps preferably with an automated low-glucose suspend feature and/or very frequent contact with a specialized hypoglycemia service can reduce hypoglycemia (stage 3). For patients whose problematic hypoglycemia persists, islet or pancreas transplant should be considered (stage 4). This algorithm provides an evidence-informed approach to resolving problematic hypoglycemia; it should be used as a guide, with individual patient circumstances directing suitability and acceptability to ensure the prudent use of technology and scarce transplant resources. Standardized reporting of hypoglycemia outcomes and inclusion of patients with problematic hypoglycemia in studies of new interventions may help to guide future therapeutic strategies.