A few diabetes papers of interest

(I hadn’t expected to only cover two papers in this post, but the second paper turned out to include a lot of stuff I figured might be worth adding here. I might add another post later this week including some of the other studies I had intended to cover in this post.)

—

i. Burden of Mortality Attributable to Diagnosed Diabetes: A Nationwide Analysis Based on Claims Data From 65 Million People in Germany.

“Diabetes is among the 10 most common causes of death worldwide (2). Between 1990 and 2010, the number of deaths attributable to diabetes has doubled (2). People with diabetes have a reduced life expectancy of ∼5 to 6 years (3). The most common cause of death in people with diabetes is cardiovascular disease (3,4). Over the past few decades, a reduction of diabetes mortality has been observed in several countries (5–9). However, the excess risk of death is still higher than in the population without diabetes, particularly in younger age-groups (4,9,10). Unfortunately, in most countries worldwide, reliable data on diabetes mortality are lacking (1). In a few European countries, such as Denmark (5) and Sweden (4), mortality analyses are based on national diabetes registries that include all age-groups. However, Germany and many other European countries do not have such national registries. Until now, age-standardized hazard ratios for diabetes mortality between 1.4 and 2.6 have been published for Germany on the basis of regional studies and surveys with small respondent numbers (11–14). To the best of our knowledge, no nationwide estimates of the number of excess deaths due to diabetes have been published for Germany, and no information on older age-groups >79 years is currently available.

In 2012, changes in the regulation of data transparency enabled the use of nationwide routine health care data from the German statutory health insurance system, which insures ∼90% of the German population (15). These changes have allowed for new possibilities for estimating the burden of diabetes in Germany. Hence, this study estimates the number of excess deaths due to diabetes (ICD-10 codes E10–E14) and type 2 diabetes (ICD-10 code E11) in Germany, which is the number of deaths that could have been prevented if the diabetes mortality rate was as high as that of the population without diabetes.”

“Nationwide data on mortality ratios for diabetes and no diabetes are not available for Germany. […] the age- and sex-specific mortality rate ratios between people with diabetes and without diabetes were used from a Danish study wherein the Danish National Diabetes Register was linked to the individual mortality data from the Civil Registration System that includes all people residing in Denmark (5). Because the Danish National Diabetes Register is one of the most accurate diabetes registries in Europe, with a sensitivity of 86% and positive predictive value of 90% (5), we are convinced that the Danish estimates are highly valid and reliable. Denmark and Germany have a comparable standard of living and health care system. The diabetes prevalence in these countries is similar (Denmark 7.2%, Germany 7.4% [20]) and mortality of people with and without diabetes comparable, as shown in the European mortality database”

“In total, 174,627 excess deaths (137,950 from type 2 diabetes) could have been prevented in 2010 if mortality was the same in people with and without diabetes. Overall, 21% of all deaths in Germany were attributable to diabetes, and 16% were attributable to type 2 diabetes […] Most of the excess deaths occurred in the 70- to 79- and 80- to 89-year-old age-groups (∼34% each) […]. Substantial sex differences were found in diabetes-related excess deaths. From the age of ∼40 years, the number of male excess deaths due to diabetes started to grow, but the number of female excess deaths increased with a delay. Thus, the highest number of male excess deaths due to diabetes occurred at the age of ∼75 years, whereas the peak of female excess deaths was ∼10 years later. […] The diabetes mortality rates increased with age and were always higher than in the population without diabetes. The largest differences in mortality rates between people with and without diabetes were observed in the younger age-groups. […] These results are in accordance with previous studies worldwide (3,4,7,9) and regional studies in Germany (11–13).”

“According to official numbers from the Federal Statistical Office, 858,768 people died in Germany in 2010, with 23,131 deaths due to diabetes, representing 2.7% of the all-cause mortality (26). Hence, in Germany, diabetes is not ranked among the top 10 most common causes of death […]. We found that 21% of all deaths were attributable to diabetes and 16% were attributable to type 2 diabetes; hence, we suggest that the number of excess deaths attributable to diabetes is strongly underestimated if we rely on reported causes of death from death certificates, as official statistics do. Estimating diabetes-related mortality is challenging because most people die as a result of diabetes complications and comorbidities, such as cardiovascular disease and renal failure, which often are reported as the underlying cause of death (1,23). For this reason, another approach is to focus not only on the underlying cause of death but also on the multiple causes of death to assess any mention of a disease on the death certificate (27). In a study from Italy, the method of assessing multiple causes of death revealed that in 12.3% of all studied death certificates, diabetes was mentioned, whereas only 2.9% reported diabetes as the underlying cause of death (27), corresponding to a four times higher proportion of death related to diabetes. Another nationwide analysis from Canada found that diabetes was more than twice as likely to be a contributing factor to death than the underlying cause of death from the years 2004–2008 (28). A recently published study from the U.S. that was based on two representative surveys from 1997 to 2010 found that 11.5% of all deaths were attributable to diabetes, which reflects a three to four times higher proportion of diabetes-related deaths (29). Overall, these results, together with the current calculations, demonstrate that deaths due to diabetes contribute to a much higher burden than previously assumed.”

…

ii. Standardizing Clinically Meaningful Outcome Measures Beyond HbA1c for Type 1 Diabetes: A Consensus Report of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Association of Diabetes Educators, the American Diabetes Association, the Endocrine Society, JDRF International, The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, and the T1D Exchange.

“Type 1 diabetes is a life-threatening, autoimmune disease that strikes children and adults and can be fatal. People with type 1 diabetes have to test their blood glucose multiple times each day and dose insulin via injections or an infusion pump 24 h a day every day. Too much insulin can result in hypoglycemia, seizures, coma, or death. Hyperglycemia over time leads to kidney, heart, nerve, and eye damage. Even with diligent monitoring, the majority of people with type 1 diabetes do not achieve recommended target glucose levels. In the U.S., approximately one in five children and one in three adults meet hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) targets and the average patient spends 7 h a day hyperglycemic and over 90 min hypoglycemic (1–3). […] HbA_1c is a well-accepted surrogate outcome measure for evaluating the efficacy of diabetes therapies and technologies in clinical practice as well as in research (4–6). […] While HbA_1c is used as a primary outcome to assess glycemic control and as a surrogate for risk of developing complications, it has limitations. As a measure of mean blood glucose over 2 or 3 months, HbA_1c does not capture short-term variations in blood glucose or exposure to hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia in individuals with type 1 diabetes; HbA_1c also does not capture the impact of blood glucose variations on individuals’ quality of life. Recent advances in type 1 diabetes technologies have made it feasible to assess the efficacy of therapies and technologies using a set of outcomes beyond HbA_1c and to expand definitions of outcomes such as hypoglycemia. While definitions for hypoglycemia in clinical care exist, they have not been standardized […]. The lack of standard definitions impedes and can confuse their use in clinical practice, impedes development processes for new therapies, makes comparison of studies in the literature challenging, and may lead to regulatory and reimbursement decisions that fail to meet the needs of people with diabetes. To address this vital issue, the type 1 diabetes–stakeholder community launched the Type 1 Diabetes Outcomes Program to develop consensus definitions for a set of priority outcomes for type 1 diabetes. […] The outcomes prioritized under the program include hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, time in range, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs).”

“Hypoglycemia is a significant — and potentially fatal — complication of type 1 diabetes management and has been found to be a barrier to achieving glycemic goals (9). Repeated exposure to severe hypoglycemic events has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes (10,11). Hypoglycemia can also be fatal, and severe hypoglycemic events have been associated with increased mortality (12–14). In addition to the physical aspects of hypoglycemia, it can also have negative consequences on emotional status and quality of life.

While there is some variability in how and when individuals manifest symptoms of hypoglycemia, beginning at blood glucose levels <70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) (which is at the low end of the typical post-absorptive plasma glucose range), the body begins to increase its secretion of counterregulatory hormones including glucagon, epinephrine, cortisol, and growth hormone. The release of these hormones can cause moderate autonomic effects, including but not limited to shaking, palpitations, sweating, and hunger (15). Individuals without diabetes do not typically experience dangerously low blood glucose levels because of counterregulatory hormonal regulation of glycemia (16). However, in individuals with type 1 diabetes, there is often a deficiency of the counterregulatory response […]. Moreover, as people with diabetes experience an increased number of episodes of hypoglycemia, the risk of hypoglycemia unawareness, impaired glucose counterregulation (for example, in hypoglycemia-associated autonomic failure [17]), and level 2 and level 3 hypoglycemia […] all increase (18). Therefore, it is important to recognize and treat all hypoglycemic events in people with type 1 diabetes, particularly in populations (children, the elderly) that may not have the ability to recognize and self-treat hypoglycemia. […] More notable clinical symptoms begin at blood glucose levels <54 mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L) (19,20). As the body’s primary utilizer of glucose, the brain is particularly sensitive to decreases in blood glucose concentrations. Both experimental and clinical evidence has shown that, at these levels, neurogenic and neuroglycopenic symptoms including impairments in reaction times, information processing, psychomotor function, and executive function begin to emerge. These neurological symptoms correlate to altered brain activity in multiple brain areas including the prefrontal cortex and medial temporal lobe (21–24). At these levels, individuals may experience confusion, dizziness, blurred or double vision, tremors, and tingling sensations (25). Hypoglycemia at this glycemic level may also increase proinflammatory and prothrombotic markers (26). Left untreated, these symptoms can become severe to the point that an individual will require assistance from others to move or function. Prolonged untreated hypoglycemia that continues to drop below 50 mg/dL (2.8 mmol/L) increases the risk of seizures, coma, and death (27,28). Hypoglycemia that affects cognition and stamina may also increase the risk of accidents and falls, which is a particular concern for older adults with diabetes (29,30).

The glycemic thresholds at which these symptoms occur, as well as the severity with which they manifest themselves, may vary in individuals with type 1 diabetes depending on the number of hypoglycemic episodes they have experienced (31–33). Counterregulatory physiological responses may evolve in patients with type 1 diabetes who endure repeated hypoglycemia over time (34,35).”

“The Steering Committee defined three levels of hypoglycemia […] Level 1 hypoglycemia is defined as a measurable glucose concentration <70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) but ≥54 mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L) that can alert a person to take action. A blood glucose concentration of 70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) has been recognized as a marker of physiological hypoglycemia in humans, as it approximates the glycemic threshold for neuroendocrine responses to falling glucose levels in individuals without diabetes. As such, blood glucose in individuals without diabetes is generally 70–100 mg/dL (3.9–5.6 mmol/L) upon waking and 70–140 mg/dL (3.9–7.8 mmol/L) after meals, and any excursions beyond those levels are typically countered with physiological controls (16,37). However, individuals with diabetes who have impaired or altered counterregulatory hormonal and neurological responses do not have the same internal regulation as individuals without diabetes to avoid dropping below 70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) and becoming hypoglycemic. Recurrent episodes of hypoglycemia lead to increased hypoglycemia unawareness, which can become dangerous as individuals cease to experience symptoms of hypoglycemia, allowing their blood glucose levels to continue falling. Therefore, glucose levels <70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) are clinically important, independent of the severity of acute symptoms.

Level 2 hypoglycemia is defined as a measurable glucose concentration <54 mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L) that needs immediate action. At ∼54 mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L), neurogenic and neuroglycopenic hypoglycemic symptoms begin to occur, ultimately leading to brain dysfunction at levels <50 mg/dL (2.8 mmol/L) (19,20). […] Level 3 hypoglycemia is defined as a severe event characterized by altered mental and/or physical status requiring assistance. Severe hypoglycemia captures events during which the symptoms associated with hypoglycemia impact a patient to such a degree that the patient requires assistance from others (27,28). […] Hypoglycemia that sets in relatively rapidly, such as in the case of a significant insulin overdose, may induce level 2 or level 3 hypoglycemia with little warning (38).”

“The data regarding the effects of chronic hyperglycemia on long-term outcomes is conclusive, indicating that chronic hyperglycemia is a major contributor to morbidity and mortality in type 1 diabetes (41,43–45). […] Although the correlation between long-term poor glucose control and type 1 diabetes complications is well established, the impact of short-term hyperglycemia is not as well understood. However, hyperglycemia has been shown to have physiological effects and in an acute-care setting is linked to morbidity and mortality in people with and without diabetes. Short-term hyperglycemia, regardless of diabetes diagnosis, has been shown to reduce survival rates among patients admitted to the hospital with stroke or myocardial infarction (47,48). In addition to increasing mortality, short-term hyperglycemia is correlated with stroke severity and poststroke disability (49,50).

The effects of short-term hyperglycemia have also been observed in nonacute settings. Evidence indicates that hyperglycemia alters retinal cell firing through sensitization in patients with type 1 diabetes (51). This finding is consistent with similar findings showing increased oxygen consumption and blood flow in the retina during hyperglycemia. Because retinal cells absorb glucose through an insulin-independent process, they respond more strongly to increases in glucose in the blood than other cells in patients with type 1 diabetes. The effects of acute hyperglycemia on retinal response may underlie part of the development of retinopathy known to be a long-term complication of type 1 diabetes.”

“The Steering Committee defines hyperglycemia for individuals with type 1 diabetes as the following:

• Level 1—elevated glucose: glucose >180 mg/dL (10 mmol/L) and glucose ≤250 mg/dL (13.9 mmol/L)

• Level 2—very elevated glucose: glucose >250 mg/dL (13.9 mmol/L) […]

Elevated glucose is defined as a glucose concentration >180 mg/dL (10.0 mmol/L) but ≤250 mg/dL (13.9 mmol/L). In clinical practice, measures of hyperglycemia differ based on time of day (e.g., pre- vs. postmeal). This program, however, focused on defining outcomes for use in product development that are universally applicable. Glucose profiles and postprandial blood glucose data for individuals without diabetes suggest that 140 mg/dL (7.8 mmol/L) is the appropriate threshold for defining hyperglycemia. However, data demonstrate that the majority of individuals without diabetes exceed this threshold every day. Moreover, people with diabetes spend >60% of their day above this threshold, which suggests that 140 mg/dL (7.8 mmol/L) is too low of a threshold for measuring hyperglycemia in individuals with diabetes. Current clinical guidelines for people with diabetes indicate that peak prandial glucose should not exceed 180 mg/dL (10.0 mmol/L). As such, the Steering Committee identified 180 mg/dL (10.0 mmol/L) as the initial threshold defining elevated glucose. […]

Very elevated glucose is defined as a glucose concentration >250 mg/dL (13.9 mmol/L). Evidence examining the impact of hyperglycemia does not examine the incremental effects of increasing blood glucose. However, blood glucose values exceeding 250 mg/dL (13.9 mmol/L) increase the risk for DKA (58), and HbA_1c readings at that level have been associated with a high likelihood of complications.”

“An individual whose blood glucose levels rarely extend beyond the thresholds defined for hypo- and hyperglycemia is less likely to be subject to the short-term or long-term effects experienced by those with frequent excursions beyond one or both thresholds. It is also evident that if the intent of a given intervention is to safely manage blood glucose but the intervention does not reliably maintain blood glucose within safe levels, then the intervention should not be considered effective.

The time in range outcome is distinguished from traditional HbA_1c testing in several ways (4,59). Time in range captures fluctuations in glucose levels continuously, whereas HbA_1c testing is done at static points in time, usually months apart (60). Furthermore, time in range is more specific and sensitive than traditional HbA_1c testing; for example, a treatment that addresses acute instances of hypo- or hyperglycemia may be detected in a time in range assessment but not necessarily in an HbA_1c assessment. As a percentage, time in range is also more likely to be comparable across patients than HbA_1c values, which are more likely to have patient-specific variations in significance (61). Finally, time in range may be more likely than HbA_1c levels to correlate with PROs, such as quality of life, because the outcome is more representative of the whole patient experience (62). Table 3 illustrates how the concept of time in range differs from current HbA_1c testing. […] [V]ariation in what is considered “normal” glucose fluctuations across populations, as well as what is realistically achievable for people with type 1 diabetes, must be taken into account so as not to make the target range definition too restrictive.”

“The Steering Committee defines time in range for individuals with type 1 diabetes as the following:

• Percentage of readings in the range of 70–180 mg/dL (3.9–10.0 mmol/L) per unit of time

The Steering Committee considered it important to keep the time in range definition wide in order to accommodate variations across the population with type 1 diabetes — including different age-groups — but limited enough to preclude the possibility of negative outcomes. The upper and lower bounds of the time in range definition are consistent with the definitions for hypo- and hyperglycemia defined above. For individuals without type 1 diabetes, 70–140 mg/dL (3.9–7.8 mmol/L) represents a normal glycemic range (66). However, spending most of the day in this range is not generally achievable for people with type 1 diabetes […] To date, there is limited research correlating time in range with positive short-term and long-term type 1 diabetes outcomes, as opposed to the extensive research demonstrating the negative consequences of excursions into hyper- or hypoglycemia. More substantial evidence demonstrating a correlation or a direct causative relationship between time in range for patients with type 1 diabetes and positive health outcomes is needed.”

“DKA is often associated with hyperglycemia. In most cases, in an individual with diabetes, the cause of hyperglycemia is also the cause of DKA, although the two conditions are distinct. DKA develops when a lack of glucose in cells prompts the body to begin breaking down fatty acid reserves. This increases the levels of ketones in the body (ketosis) and causes a drop in blood pH (acidosis). At its most severe, DKA can cause cerebral edema, acute respiratory distress, thromboembolism, coma, and death (69,70). […] Although the current definition for DKA includes a list of multiple criteria that must be met, not all information currently included in the accepted definition is consistently gathered or required to diagnose DKA. The Steering Committee defines DKA in individuals with type 1 diabetes in a clinical setting as the following:

• Elevated serum or urine ketones (greater than the upper limit of the normal range), and

• Serum bicarbonate <15 mmol/L or blood pH <7.3

Given the seriousness of DKA, it is unnecessary to stratify DKA into different levels or categories, as the presence of DKA—regardless of the differences observed in the separate biochemical tests—should always be considered serious. In individuals with known diabetes, plasma glucose values are not necessary to diagnose DKA. Further, new therapeutic agents, specifically sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, have been linked to euglycemic DKA, or DKA with blood glucose values <250 mg/dL (13.9 mmol/L).”

“In guidance released in 2009 (72), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defined PROs as “any report of the status of a patient’s health condition that comes directly from the patient, without interpretation of the patient’s response by a clinician or anyone else.” In the same document, the FDA clearly acknowledged the importance of PROs, advising that they be used to gather information that is “best known by the patient or best measured from the patient perspective.”

Measuring and using PROs is increasingly seen as essential to evaluating care from a patient-centered perspective […] Given that type 1 diabetes is a chronic condition primarily treated on an outpatient basis, much of what people with type 1 diabetes experience is not captured through standard clinical measurement. Measures that capture PROs can fill these important information gaps. […] The use of validated PROs in type 1 diabetes clinical research is not currently widespread, and challenges to effectively measuring some PROs, such as quality of life, continue to confront researchers and developers.”