Kudva, Yogish C.

Background Obesity is increasingly common in kidney transplant candidates and may limit access to transplantation. Obesity and diabetes are associated with a high risk for post-transplant complications. The best approach to weight loss to facilitate active transplant listing is unknown, but bariatric surgery is rarely considered due to patient- and physician-related apprehension, among other factors. Methods We aimed to determine the magnitude of weight loss, listing, and transplant rates in 28 candidates with a mean BMI of 44.4±4.6 kg/m 2 and diabetes treated conservatively for 1 year post weight-loss consultations (group 1). Additionally, we evaluated 15 patients (group 2) who met the inclusion criteria but received bariatric intervention within the same time frame. All patients completed a multidisciplinary weight management consultation with at least 1 year of follow-up. Results In the conservatively managed group (group 1), the mean weight at the time of initial consultation was 126.5±18.5 kg, and the mean BMI was 44.4±4.6 kg/m 2 . At 1 year post weight-loss consultation, the mean weight decreased by 4.4±8.2 kg to 122.9±17 kg, and the mean BMI was 43±4.8 kg/m 2 , with a total mean body weight decrease of 3% ( P =0.01). Eighteen patients (64%) did not progress to become candidates for active listing/transplantation during the follow-up time of 4±2.9 years, with 15 (54%) subsequently developing renal failure/diabetes-related comorbidities prohibitive for transplantation. In contrast, mean total body weight decreased by 19% at 6 months post bariatric surgery, and the mean BMI was 34.2±4 and 32.5±3.7 kg/m 2 at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Bariatric surgery was strongly associated with subsequent kidney transplantation (HR=8.39 [95% CI 1.71 to 41.19]; P =0.009). Conclusions A conservative weight-loss approach involving multidisciplinary consultation was ineffective in most kidney transplant candidates with diabetes, suggesting that a more proactive approach is needed.

Abstract Introduction Diabetes mellitus in kidney transplant recipients is a risk factor for cardiovascular events and premature death. Sodium‐glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) are increasingly used in nontransplant populations to improve diabetes control and cardiovascular and renal benefits. Limited literature exists regarding the safety and efficacy of these agents in renal transplant recipients. Methods We retrospectively reviewed all kidney transplant recipients within our health system who were prescribed a SGLT2i after transplantation for diabetes. The safety, tolerability, and effectiveness of SGLT2i were analyzed. Results Thirty‐nine kidney transplant recipients were initiated on SGLT2i therapy, twenty‐seven of which remained on therapy for at least 1 year. Ten (25%) patients experienced an adverse event while on a SGLT2i, with urinary tract infections (UTI) being the most common. Seventeen patients (43%) discontinued the SGLT2i at the time of chart review, most commonly due to cost and kidney function decline. The median [IQR] hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) at SGLT2i initiation of 8.4% [7.8–9.2] decreased to 7.5% [6.8–8.0%] after 3 months and 7.5% [6.5–7.9] after 12 months. No meaningful change in kidney function or tacrolimus exposure was observed. Conclusion SGLT2i may be a safe and effective treatment for diabetes in kidney transplant recipients. Cost is a barrier to SGLT2i therapy, and UTIs were the most frequently encountered adverse events in this cohort. More studies are needed to understand the safety profile and determine the effect of SGLT2i on diabetes‐related comorbidities among kidney transplant recipients.

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have proven effective in increasing time-in-range during both clinical trials and real-world use. Further improvements in outcomes for single-hormone (insulin only) AID may be limited by suboptimal insulin delivery settings. Methods: Adults (≥18 years of age) with type 1 diabetes were randomized to either sensor-augmented pump (SAP) (inclusive of predictive low-glucose suspend) or adaptive zone model predictive control AID for 13 weeks, then crossed over to the other arm. Each week, the AID insulin delivery settings were sequentially and automatically updated by an adaptation system running on the study phone. Primary outcome was sensor glucose time-in-range 70–180 mg/dL, with noninferiority in percent time below 54 mg/dL as a hierarchical outcome. Results: Thirty-five participants completed the trial (mean age 39 ± 16 years, HbA1c at enrollment 6.9% ± 1.0%). Mean time-in-range 70–180 mg/dL was 66% with SAP versus 69% with AID (mean adjusted difference +2% [95% confidence interval: −1% to +6%], P = 0.22). Median time <70 mg/dL improved from 3.0% with SAP to 1.6% with AID (−1.5% [−2.4% to −0.5%], P = 0.002). The adaptation system decreased initial basal rates by a median of 4% (−8%, 16%) and increased initial carbohydrate ratios by a median of 45% (32%, 59%) after 13 weeks. Conclusions: Automated adaptation of insulin delivery settings with AID use did not significantly improve time-in-range in this very well-controlled population. Additional study and further refinement of the adaptation system are needed, especially in populations with differing degrees of baseline glycemic control, who may show larger benefits from adaptation.

Background: We investigated the potential benefits of automated insulin delivery (AID) among individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in sub-populations of baseline device use determined by continuous glucose monitor (CGM) use status and insulin delivery via multiple daily injections (MDI) or insulin pump. Materials and Methods: In a six-month randomized, multicenter trial, 168 individuals were assigned to closed-loop control (CLC, Control-IQ, Tandem Diabetes Care), or sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy. The trial included a two- to eight-week run-in phase to train participants on study devices. The participants were stratified into four subgroups: insulin pump and CGM (pump+CGM), pump-only, MDI and CGM (MDI+CGM), and MDI users without CGM (MDI-only) users. We compared glycemic outcomes among four subgroups. Results: At baseline, 61% were pump+CGM users, 18% pump-only users, 10% MDI+CGM users, and 11% MDI-only users. Mean time in range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR) improved from baseline in the four subgroups using CLC: pump+CGM, 62% to 73%; pump-only, 61% to 70%; MDI+CGM, 54% to 68%; and MDI-only, 61% to 69%. The reduction in time below 70 mg/dL from baseline was comparable among the four subgroups. No interaction effect was detected with baseline device use for TIR ( P = .67) or time below ( P = .77). On the System Usability Questionnaire, scores were high at 26 weeks for all subgroups: pump+CGM: 87.2 ± 12.1, pump-only: 89.4 ± 8.2, MDI+CGM 87.2 ± 9.3, MDI: 78.1 ± 15. Conclusions: There was a consistent benefit in patients with T1D when using CLC, regardless of baseline insulin delivery modality or CGM use. These data suggest that this CLC system can be considered across a wide range of patients.

Background: Pregnancies in type 1 diabetes are high risk, and data in the United States are limited regarding continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-based hypoglycemia throughout pregnancy while on sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy. Materials and Methods: Pregnant women with type 1 diabetes in the LOIS-P Study (Longitudinal Observation of Insulin use and glucose Sensor metrics in Pregnant women with type 1 diabetes using continuous glucose monitors and insulin pumps) were enrolled before 17 weeks gestation at three U.S. centers and we used their personal insulin pump and a study Dexcom G6 CGM. We analyzed data of 25 pregnant women for CGM hypoglycemia based on international consensus guidelines for percentage time <63 and 54 mg/dL, hypoglycemic events and prolonged hypoglycemia events for 24-h, daytime, and overnight periods, and severe hypoglycemia (SH) episodes. Results: For a 24-h period, biweekly median percentage of time <63 mg/dL ranged from 0.8% at biweek 4–5 to 3.7% at biweek 14–15 with high variability throughout pregnancy. Median percentage of time <63 and 54 mg/dL was higher overnight than daytime ( P < 0.01). Hypoglycemic events occurred throughout the pregnancy, ranged 1–4 events per 2 weeks, significantly decreased after the 20th week, and occurred predominantly during daytime ( P < 0.01). For overnight period, hypoglycemia and events were more concentrated from 12 to 3 am. Seven prolonged hypoglycemia events without any associated SH occurred in four participants (16%), primarily overnight. Three participants experienced a single episode of SH. Conclusions: Our results suggest a higher overall risk of hypoglycemia throughout pregnancy during the overnight period with continued daytime risk of hypoglycemic events in pregnancies complicated by type 1 diabetes.

Objective: To evaluate glycemic outcomes in the Wireless Innovation for Seniors with Diabetes Mellitus (WISDM) randomized clinical trial (RCT) participants during an observational extension phase. Research Design and Methods: WISDM RCT was a 26-week RCT comparing continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) with blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in 203 adults aged ≥60 years with type 1 diabetes. Of the 198 participants who completed the RCT, 100 (98%) CGM group participants continued CGM (CGM-CGM cohort) and 94 (98%) BGM group participants initiated CGM (BGM-CGM cohort) for an additional 26 weeks. Results: CGM was used a median of >90% of the time at 52 weeks in both cohorts. In the CGM-CGM cohort, median time <70 mg/dL decreased from 5.0% at baseline to 2.6% at 26 weeks and remained stable with a median of 2.8% at 52 weeks ( P < 0.001 baseline to 52 weeks). Participants spent more time in range 70–180 mg/dL (TIR) (mean 56% vs. 64%; P < 0.001) and had lower hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (mean 7.6% [59 mmol/mol] vs. 7.4% [57 mmol/mol]; P = 0.01) from baseline to 52 weeks. In BGM-CGM, from 26 to 52 weeks median time <70 mg/dL decreased from 3.9% to 1.9% ( P < 0.001), TIR increased from 56% to 60% ( P = 0.006) and HbA1c decreased from 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) to 7.3% (57 mmol/mol) ( P = 0.025). In BGM-CGM, a severe hypoglycemic event was reported for nine participants while using BGM during the RCT and for two participants during the extension phase with CGM ( P = 0.02). Conclusions: CGM use reduced hypoglycemia without increasing hyperglycemia in older adults with type 1 diabetes. These data provide further evidence for fully integrating CGM into clinical practice. Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03240432)

Background: Standard insulin infusion sets (IISs) are to be replaced every 2 to 3 days to avoid complications and diabetic ketosis due to set failure. This pivotal trial evaluated the safety and performance of a new extended-wear infusion set (EIS) when used for 7 days by adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: This single-arm, nonrandomized trial enrolled adults (18–80 years of age) with T1D, who used their own MiniMed™ 670G system with insulin lispro or insulin aspart and the EIS for up to 7 days, across 12 consecutive wears. Safety endpoints included incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs), serious adverse device effects (SADEs), unanticipated adverse device effects (UADEs), severe hypoglycemia (SevHypo), severe hyperglycemia (SevHyper), diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), and skin infection. The EIS failure rate due to unexplained hyperglycemia (i.e., suspected occlusion), the overall EIS survival rate, glycemic control outcomes (i.e., A1C, mean sensor glucose and time spent in established glucose ranges), total daily insulin delivered, and satisfaction with the EIS were determined. Results: The intention to treat population ( n = 259, 48% men, 45.0 ± 14.1 years) wore a total of 3041 EIS devices. No SADE, UADE, or DKA events was reported. Overall rates of SAEs, SevHypo, SevHyper, and skin infection were 3.8, 2.5, 104.1, and 20.1 events per 100 participant-years. The rate of EIS failure due to unexplained hyperglycemia at the end of day 7 was 0.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03–0.51) and 0.4% (95% CI: 0.16–1.00) for insulin lispro and aspart use, respectively. Overall EIS survival rate at the end of day 7 was 77.8% (95% CI: 76.2–79.3), glycemic control did not change, and participants reported greater satisfaction with the EIS compared with standard IISs worn before the study ( P < 0.001). Conclusions: This investigation demonstrates that the EIS, when worn for up to 7 days, was safe and rated with high satisfaction, without adversely affecting glycemic control in adults with T1D. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT04113694 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04113694 ).

Objective: Evaluating the feasibility of closed-loop insulin delivery with a zone model predictive control (zone-MPC) algorithm designed for pregnancy complicated by type 1 diabetes (T1D). Research Design and Methods: Pregnant women with T1D from 14 to 32 weeks gestation already using continuous glucose monitor (CGM) augmented pump therapy were enrolled in a 2-day multicenter supervised outpatient study evaluating pregnancy-specific zone-MPC based closed-loop control (CLC) with the interoperable artificial pancreas system (iAPS) running on an unlocked smartphone. Meals and activities were unrestricted. The primary outcome was the CGM percentage of time between 63 and 140 mg/dL compared with participants' 1-week run-in period. Early (2-h) postprandial glucose control was also evaluated. Results: Eleven participants completed the study (age: 30.6 ± 4.1 years; gestational age: 20.7 ± 3.5 weeks; weight: 76.5 ± 15.3 kg; hemoglobin A1c: 5.6% ± 0.5% at enrollment). No serious adverse events occurred. Compared with the 1-week run-in, there was an increased percentage of time in 63–140 mg/dL during supervised CLC (CLC: 81.5%, run-in: 64%, P = 0.007) with less time >140 mg/dL (CLC: 16.5%, run-in: 30.8%, P = 0.029) and time <63 mg/dL (CLC: 2.0%, run-in:5.2%, P = 0.039). There was also less time <54 mg/dL (CLC: 0.7%, run-in:1.6%, P = 0.030) and >180 mg/dL (CLC: 4.9%, run-in: 13.1%, P = 0.032). Overnight glucose control was comparable, except for less time >250 mg/dL (CLC: 0%, run-in:3.9%, P = 0.030) and lower glucose standard deviation (CLC: 23.8 mg/dL, run-in:42.8 mg/dL, P = 0.007) during CLC. Conclusion: In this pilot study, use of the pregnancy-specific zone-MPC was feasible in pregnant women with T1D. Although the duration of our study was short and the number of participants was small, our findings add to the limited data available on the use of CLC systems during pregnancy (NCT04492566).