SummaryBackgroundThe achievement of glycaemic control remains challenging for patients with type 1 diabetes. We assessed the effectiveness of day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy in people with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes aged 6 years and older.MethodsIn this open-label, multicentre, multinational, single-period, parallel randomised controlled trial, participants were recruited from diabetes outpatient clinics at four hospitals in the UK and two centres in the USA. We randomly assigned participants with type 1 diabetes aged 6 years and older treated with insulin pump and with suboptimal glycaemic control (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 7·5–10·0%) to receive either hybrid closed-loop therapy or sensor-augmented pump therapy over 12 weeks of free living. Training on study insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring took place over a 4-week run-in period. Eligible subjects were randomly assigned using central randomisation software. Allocation to the two study groups was unblinded, and randomisation was stratified within centre by low (<8·5%) or high (≥8·5%) HbA1c. The primary endpoint was the proportion of time that glucose concentration was within the target range of 3·9–10·0 mmol/L at 12 weeks post randomisation. Analyses of primary outcome and safety measures were done in all randomised patients. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02523131, and is closed to accrual.FindingsFrom May 12, 2016, to Nov 17, 2017, 114 individuals were screened, and 86 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive hybrid closed-loop therapy (n=46) or sensor-augmented pump therapy (n=40; control group). The proportion of time that glucose concentration was within the target range was significantly higher in the closed-loop group (65%, SD 8) compared with the control group (54%, SD 9; mean difference in change 10·8 percentage points, 95% CI 8·2 to 13·5; p<0·0001). In the closed-loop group, HbA1c was reduced from a screening value of 8·3% (SD 0·6) to 8·0% (SD 0·6) after the 4-week run-in, and to 7·4% (SD 0·6) after the 12-week intervention period. In the control group, the HbA1c values were 8·2% (SD 0·5) at screening, 7·8% (SD 0·6) after run-in, and 7·7% (SD 0·5) after intervention; reductions in HbA1c percentages were significantly greater in the closed-loop group compared with the control group (mean difference in change 0·36%, 95% CI 0·19 to 0·53; p<0·0001). The time spent with glucose concentrations below 3·9 mmol/L (mean difference in change −0·83 percentage points, −1·40 to −0·16; p=0·0013) and above 10·0 mmol/L (mean difference in change −10·3 percentage points, −13·2 to −7·5; p<0·0001) was shorter in the closed-loop group than the control group. The coefficient of variation of sensor-measured glucose was not different between interventions (mean difference in change −0·4%, 95% CI −1·4% to 0·7%; p=0·50). Similarly, total daily insulin dose was not different (mean difference in change 0·031 U/kg per day, 95% CI −0·005 to 0·067; p=0·09...

As India will ranks first in diabetes now and will continue to do so in 2025, we must prevent the disease by various measures. Before setting the programmes, we should have ample data on the population's knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) of diabetes. There are some epidemiological studies from southern India, Mumbai and north India, but there is no KAP study from Gujarat. The study was conducted between the period of June 2007 to November 2007 at three centers of Saurashtra region. Out of 300 patients who were given questionnaire, 238 patients were included for the analysis, rest were excluded due to various reasons. 52% were male. Mean age of patients was 55.82±10.2 years (95% CI 54.5-57.1) with mean weight of 64.52±10.96 Kg (95% CI 62.8-66.2). Mean duration of diabetes was 8.2±6.8 years (95% CI 7.2-9.1). 46% of patients knew the pathophysiology of diabetes. Nearly 50% knew the complications of diabetes. Dietary modifications were relied more than exercises among the interviewed subjects. Most of the lacunae in knowledge prevailed in drug therapy of diabetes. Insulin was not favored by most of patients. An encouraging finding in our study was that most believed in self-care and ready to change. Consultation time given by their treating doctors was less than 5 minutes in nearly 50%. Foot care and education to prevent complications were least suggested by doctors.

for the Wireless Innovation for Seniors With Diabetes Mellitus (WISDM) Study Group IMPORTANCE Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides real-time assessment of glucose levels and may be beneficial in reducing hypoglycemia in older adults with type 1 diabetes. OBJECTIVE To determine whether CGM is effective in reducing hypoglycemia compared with standard blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in older adults with type 1 diabetes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized clinical trial conducted at 22 endocrinology practices in the United States among 203 adults at least 60 years of age with type 1 diabetes. INTERVENTIONS Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to use CGM (n = 103) or standard BGM (n = 100). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was CGM-measured percentage of time that sensor glucose values were less than 70 mg/dL during 6 months of follow-up. There were 31 prespecified secondary outcomes, including additional CGM metrics for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and glucose control; hemoglobin A 1c (HbA 1c ); and cognition and patient-reported outcomes, with adjustment for multiple comparisons to control for false-discovery rate. RESULTSOf the 203 participants (median age, 68 [interquartile range {IQR}, 65-71] years; median type 1 diabetes duration, 36 [IQR, years; 52% female; 53% insulin pump use; mean HbA 1c , 7.5% [SD, 0.9%]), 83% used CGM at least 6 days per week during month 6. Median time with glucose levels less than 70 mg/dL was 5.1% (73 minutes per day) at baseline and 2.7% (39 minutes per day) during follow-up in the CGM group vs 4.7% (68 minutes per day) and 4.9% (70 minutes per day), respectively, in the standard BGM group (adjusted treatment difference, −1.9% (−27 minutes per day); 95% CI, −2.8% to −1.1% [−40 to −16 minutes per day]; P <.001). Of the 31 prespecified secondary end points, there were statistically significant differences for all 9 CGM metrics, 6 of 7 HbA 1c outcomes, and none of the 15 cognitive and patient-reported outcomes. Mean HbA 1c decreased in the CGM group compared with the standard BGM group (adjusted group difference, −0.3%; 95% CI, −0.4% to −0.1%; P <.001). The most commonly reported adverse events using CGM and standard BGM, respectively, were severe hypoglycemia (1 and 10), fractures (5 and 1), falls (4 and 3), and emergency department visits (6 and 8).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among adults aged 60 years or older with type 1 diabetes, continuous glucose monitoring compared with standard blood glucose monitoring resulted in a small but statistically significant improvement in hypoglycemia over 6 months. Further research is needed to understand the long-term clinical benefit.

OBJECTIVETo determine whether the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) without confirmatory blood glucose monitoring (BGM) measurements is as safe and effective as using CGM adjunctive to BGM in adults with well-controlled type 1 diabetes (T1D).RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSA randomized noninferiority clinical trial was conducted at 14 sites in the T1D Exchange Clinic Network. Participants were ≥18 years of age (mean 44 ± 14 years), had T1D for ≥1 year (mean duration 24 ± 12 years), used an insulin pump, and had an HbA1c ≤9.0% (≤75 mmol/mL) (mean 7.0 ± 0.7% [53 ± 7.7 mmol/mol]); prestudy, 47% were CGM users. Participants were randomly assigned 2:1 to the CGM-only (n = 149) or CGM+BGM (n = 77) group. The primary outcome was time in range (70–180 mg/dL) over the 26-week trial, with a prespecified noninferiority limit of 7.5%.RESULTSCGM use averaged 6.7 ± 0.5 and 6.8 ± 0.4 days/week in the CGM-only and CGM+BGM groups, respectively, over the 26-week trial. BGM tests per day (including the two required daily for CGM calibration) averaged 2.8 ± 0.9 and 5.4 ± 1.4 in the two groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Mean time in 70–180 mg/dL was 63 ± 13% at both baseline and 26 weeks in the CGM-only group and 65 ± 13% and 65 ± 11% in the CGM+BGM group (adjusted difference 0%; one-sided 95% CI −2%). No severe hypoglycemic events occurred in the CGM-only group, and one occurred in the CGM+BGM group.CONCLUSIONSUse of CGM without regular use of confirmatory BGM is as safe and effective as using CGM with BGM in adults with well-controlled T1D at low risk for severe hypoglycemia.

Many patients with advanced type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and all patients with T1DM require insulin to keep blood glucose levels in the target range. The most common route of insulin administration is subcutaneous insulin injections. There are many ways to deliver insulin subcutaneously such as vials and syringes, insulin pens, and insulin pumps. Though subcutaneous insulin delivery is the standard route of insulin administration, it is associated with injection pain, needle phobia, lipodystrophy, noncompliance and peripheral hyperinsulinemia. Therefore, the need exists for delivering insulin in a minimally invasive or noninvasive and in most physiological way. Inhaled insulin was the first approved noninvasive and alternative way to deliver insulin, but it has been withdrawn from the market. Technologies are being explored to make the noninvasive delivery of insulin possible. Some of the routes of insulin administration that are under investigation are oral, buccal, nasal, peritoneal and transdermal. This review article focuses on the past, present and future of various insulin delivery techniques. This article has focused on different possible routes of insulin administration with its advantages and limitation and possible scope for the new drug development.

The G6 system utilizing an automated sensor applicator provides accurate glucose readings in adults and children and adolescents throughout the 10-day sensor life.

The new factory-calibrated G6 real-time CGM system provides accurate readings for 10 days and removes several clinical barriers to broader CGM adoption.

Indians undergoing socioeconomic and lifestyle transitions will be maximally affected by epidemic of type 2 diabetes (T2D). We conducted a two-stage genome-wide association study of T2D in 12,535 Indians, a less explored but high-risk group. We identified a new type 2 diabetes–associated locus at 2q21, with the lead signal being rs6723108 (odds ratio 1.31; P = 3.32 × 10−9). Imputation analysis refined the signal to rs998451 (odds ratio 1.56; P = 6.3 × 10−12) within TMEM163 that encodes a probable vesicular transporter in nerve terminals. TMEM163 variants also showed association with decreased fasting plasma insulin and homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance, indicating a plausible effect through impaired insulin secretion. The 2q21 region also harbors RAB3GAP1 and ACMSD; those are involved in neurologic disorders. Forty-nine of 56 previously reported signals showed consistency in direction with similar effect sizes in Indians and previous studies, and 25 of them were also associated (P < 0.05). Known loci and the newly identified 2q21 locus altogether explained 7.65% variance in the risk of T2D in Indians. Our study suggests that common susceptibility variants for T2D are largely the same across populations, but also reveals a population-specific locus and provides further insights into genetic architecture and etiology of T2D.