Effect of Oral Insulin on Prevention of Diabetes in Relatives of Patients With Type 1 Diabetes

Question  Can oral insulin delay or prevent clinically diagnosed type 1 diabetes?

Findings  In this randomized clinical trial that included 389 participants in the primary analysis who were first- and second-degree relatives of patients with type 1 diabetes, oral insulin compared with placebo did not significantly reduce the risk of diabetes onset over a median of 2.7 years (insulin group, 28.5% and placebo group, 33%; hazard ratio, 0.87).

Meaning  Oral insulin as used in this study was not effective in prevention of type 1 diabetes.

Reference: JAMA. 2017;318(19):1891-1902.


Coffee consumption and health

Objectives To evaluate the existing evidence for associations between coffee consumption and multiple health outcomes.

Design Umbrella review of the evidence across meta-analyses of observational and interventional studies of coffee consumption and any health outcome.

Data sources PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and screening of references.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Meta-analyses of both observational and interventional studies that examined the associations between coffee consumption and any health outcome in any adult population in all countries and all settings. Studies of genetic polymorphisms for coffee metabolism were excluded.

Results The umbrella review identified 201 meta-analyses of observational research with 67 unique health outcomes and 17 meta-analyses of interventional research with nine unique outcomes. Coffee consumption was more often associated with benefit than harm for a range of health outcomes across exposures including high versus low, any versus none, and one extra cup a day. There was evidence of a non-linear association between consumption and some outcomes, with summary estimates indicating largest relative risk reduction at intakes of three to four cups a day versus none, including all cause mortality (relative risk 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 0.88), cardiovascular mortality (0.81, 0.72 to 0.90), and cardiovascular disease (0.85, 0.80 to 0.90). High versus low consumption was associated with an 18% lower risk of incident cancer (0.82, 0.74 to 0.89). Consumption was also associated with a lower risk of several specific cancers and neurological, metabolic, and liver conditions. Harmful associations were largely nullified by adequate adjustment for smoking, except in pregnancy, where high versus low/no consumption was associated with low birth weight (odds ratio 1.31, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.67), preterm birth in the first (1.22, 1.00 to 1.49) and second (1.12, 1.02 to 1.22) trimester, and pregnancy loss (1.46, 1.06 to 1.99). There was also an association between coffee drinking and risk of fracture in women but not in men.

Conclusion Coffee consumption seems generally safe within usual levels of intake, with summary estimates indicating largest risk reduction for various health outcomes at three to four cups a day, and more likely to benefit health than harm. Robust randomised controlled trials are needed to understand whether the observed associations are causal. Importantly, outside of pregnancy, existing evidence suggests that coffee could be tested as an intervention without significant risk of causing harm. Women at increased risk of fracture should possibly be excluded.

Reference:  BMJ 2017;359:j5024

Development and validation of QDiabetes-2018 risk prediction algorithm to estimate future risk of type 2 diabetes

Objectives To derive and validate updated QDiabetes-2018 prediction algorithms to estimate the 10 year risk of type 2 diabetes in men and women, taking account of potential new risk factors, and to compare their performance with current approaches.

Design Prospective open cohort study.

Setting Routinely collected data from 1457 general practices in England contributing to the QResearch database: 1094 were used to develop the scores and a separate set of 363 were used to validate the scores.

Participants 11.5 million people aged 25-84 and free of diabetes at baseline: 8.87 million in the derivation cohort and 2.63 million in the validation cohort.

Methods Cox proportional hazards models were used in the derivation cohort to derive separate risk equations in men and women for evaluation at 10 years. Risk factors considered included those already in QDiabetes (age, ethnicity, deprivation, body mass index, smoking, family history of diabetes in a first degree relative, cardiovascular disease, treated hypertension, and regular use of corticosteroids) and new risk factors: atypical antipsychotics, statins, schizophrenia or bipolar affective disorder, learning disability, gestational diabetes, and polycystic ovary syndrome. Additional models included fasting blood glucose and glycated haemoglobin (HBA1c). Measures of calibration and discrimination were determined in the validation cohort for men and women separately and for individual subgroups by age group, ethnicity, and baseline disease status.

Main outcome measure Incident type 2 diabetes recorded on the general practice record.

Results In the derivation cohort, 178 314 incident cases of type 2 diabetes were identified during follow-up arising from 42.72 million person years of observation. In the validation cohort, 62 326 incident cases of type 2 diabetes were identified from 14.32 million person years of observation. All new risk factors considered met our model inclusion criteria. Model A included age, ethnicity, deprivation, body mass index, smoking, family history of diabetes in a first degree relative, cardiovascular disease, treated hypertension, and regular use of corticosteroids, and new risk factors: atypical antipsychotics, statins, schizophrenia or bipolar affective disorder, learning disability, and gestational diabetes and polycystic ovary syndrome in women. Model B included the same variables as model A plus fasting blood glucose. Model C included HBA1c instead of fasting blood glucose. All three models had good calibration and high levels of explained variation and discrimination. In women, model B explained 63.3% of the variation in time to diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (R2), the D statistic was 2.69 and the Harrell’s C statistic value was 0.89. The corresponding values for men were 58.4%, 2.42, and 0.87. Model B also had the highest sensitivity compared with current recommended practice in the National Health Service based on bands of either fasting blood glucose or HBA1c. However, only 16% of patients had complete data for blood glucose measurements, smoking, and body mass index.

Conclusions Three updated QDiabetes risk models to quantify the absolute risk of type 2 diabetes were developed and validated: model A does not require a blood test and can be used to identify patients for fasting blood glucose (model B) or HBA1c (model C) testing. Model B had the best performance for predicting 10 year risk of type 2 diabetes to identify those who need interventions and more intensive follow-up, improving on current approaches. Additional external validation of models B and C in datasets with more completely collected data on blood glucose would be valuable before the models are used in clinical practice.

Reference: BMJ 2017;359:j5019

Continuous glucose monitoring in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes (CONCEPTT)


Pregnant women with type 1 diabetes are a high-risk population who are recommended to strive for optimal glucose control, but neonatal outcomes attributed to maternal hyperglycaemia remain suboptimal. Our aim was to examine the effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on maternal glucose control and obstetric and neonatal health outcomes.


In this multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial, we recruited women aged 18–40 years with type 1 diabetes for a minimum of 12 months who were receiving intensive insulin therapy. Participants were pregnant (≤13 weeks and 6 days’ gestation) or planning pregnancy from 31 hospitals in Canada, England, Scotland, Spain, Italy, Ireland, and the USA. We ran two trials in parallel for pregnant participants and for participants planning pregnancy. In both trials, participants were randomly assigned to either CGM in addition to capillary glucose monitoring or capillary glucose monitoring alone. Randomisation was stratified by insulin delivery (pump or injections) and baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). The primary outcome was change in HbA1c from randomisation to 34 weeks’ gestation in pregnant women and to 24 weeks or conception in women planning pregnancy, and was assessed in all randomised participants with baseline assessments. Secondary outcomes included obstetric and neonatal health outcomes, assessed with all available data without imputation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01788527.


Between March 25, 2013, and March 22, 2016, we randomly assigned 325 women (215 pregnant, 110 planning pregnancy) to capillary glucose monitoring with CGM (108 pregnant and 53 planning pregnancy) or without (107 pregnant and 57 planning pregnancy). We found a small difference in HbA1c in pregnant women using CGM (mean difference −0·19%; 95% CI −0·34 to −0·03; p=0·0207). Pregnant CGM users spent more time in target (68% vs 61%; p=0·0034) and less time hyperglycaemic (27% vs 32%; p=0·0279) than did pregnant control participants, with comparable severe hypoglycaemia episodes (18 CGM and 21 control) and time spent hypoglycaemic (3% vs 4%; p=0·10). Neonatal health outcomes were significantly improved, with lower incidence of large for gestational age (odds ratio 0·51, 95% CI 0·28 to 0·90; p=0·0210), fewer neonatal intensive care admissions lasting more than 24 h (0·48; 0·26 to 0·86; p=0·0157), fewer incidences of neonatal hypoglycaemia (0·45; 0·22 to 0·89; p=0·0250), and 1-day shorter length of hospital stay (p=0·0091). We found no apparent benefit of CGM in women planning pregnancy. Adverse events occurred in 51 (48%) of CGM participants and 43 (40%) of control participants in the pregnancy trial, and in 12 (27%) of CGM participants and 21 (37%) of control participants in the planning pregnancy trial. Serious adverse events occurred in 13 (6%) participants in the pregnancy trial (eight [7%] CGM, five [5%] control) and in three (3%) participants in the planning pregnancy trial (two [4%] CGM and one [2%] control). The most common adverse events were skin reactions occurring in 49 (48%) of 103 CGM participants and eight (8%) of 104 control participants during pregnancy and in 23 (44%) of 52 CGM participants and five (9%) of 57 control participants in the planning pregnancy trial. The most common serious adverse events were gastrointestinal (nausea and vomiting in four participants during pregnancy and three participants planning pregnancy).


Use of CGM during pregnancy in patients with type 1 diabetes is associated with improved neonatal outcomes, which are likely to be attributed to reduced exposure to maternal hyperglycaemia. CGM should be offered to all pregnant women with type 1 diabetes using intensive insulin therapy. This study is the first to indicate potential for improvements in non-glycaemic health outcomes from CGM use.


Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, Canadian Clinical Trials Network, and National Institute for Health Research.

Reference: The Lancet, Volume 390, No. 10110, p2347–2359, 25 November 2017

Effectiveness of fluticasone furoate plus vilanterol on asthma control in clinical practice


Evidence for management of asthma comes from closely monitored efficacy trials done in highly selected patient groups. There is a need for randomised trials that are closer to usual clinical practice.


We did an open-label, randomised, controlled, two-arm effectiveness trial at 74 general practice clinics in Salford and South Manchester, UK. Patients aged 18 years or older with a general practitioner’s diagnosis of symptomatic asthma and on maintenance inhaler therapy were randomly assigned to initiate treatment with a once-daily inhaled combination of either 100 μg or 200 μg fluticasone furoate with 25 μg vilanterol or optimised usual care and followed up for 12 months. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients who achieved an asthma control test (ACT) score of 20 or greater or an increase in ACT score from baseline of 3 or greater at 24 weeks (termed responders), in patients with a baseline ACT score less than 20 (the primary effectiveness analysis population). All effectiveness analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01706198.


Between Nov 12, 2012, and Dec 16, 2016, 4725 patients were enrolled and 4233 randomly assigned to initiate treatment with fluticasone furoate and vilanterol (n=2114) or usual care (n=2119). 1207 patients (605 assigned to usual care, 602 to fluticasone furoate and vilanterol) had a baseline ACT score greater than or equal to 20 and were thus excluded from the primary effectiveness analysis population. At week 24, the odds of being a responder were higher for patients who initiated treatment with fluticasone furoate and vilanterol than for those on usual care (977 [71%] of 1373 in the fluticasone furoate and vilanterol group vs 784 [56%] of 1399 in the usual care group; odds ratio [OR] 2·00 [95% CI 1·70–2·34], p<0·0001). At week 24, the adjusted mean ACT score increased by 4·4 points from baseline in patients initiated with fluticasone furoate and vilanterol, compared with 2·8 points in the usual care group (difference 1·6 [95% CI 1·3–2·0], p<0·0001). This result was consistent for the duration of the study. Pneumonia was uncommon, with no differences between groups; there was no difference in other serious adverse events between the groups.


In patients with a general practitioner’s diagnosis of symptomatic asthma and on maintenance inhaler therapy, initiation of a once-daily treatment regimen of combined fluticasone furoate and vilanterol improved asthma control without increasing the risk of serious adverse events when compared with optimised usual care.

Comparisons of Interventions for Preventing Falls in Older Adults

Question  What types of fall-prevention programs may be effective for reducing injurious falls in older people?

Findings  In a network meta-analysis including 54 studies and 41 596 participants, exercise (odds ratio [OR], 0.51), combined exercise, vision assessment and treatment, and environmental assessment and modification (OR, 0.30), combined exercise, and vision assessment and treatment (OR, 0.17), and combined clinic-level quality-improvement strategies, multifactorial assessment and treatment, calcium supplementation, and vitamin D supplementation (OR, 0.12) were significantly associated with reductions in injurious falls.

Meaning  The analysis identified combinations of interventions likely to be more effective than usual care for preventing injurious falls.

Reference: JAMA. 2017;318(17):1687-1699.

ACE Inhibitors and Statins in Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes


Among adolescents with type 1 diabetes, rapid increases in albumin excretion during puberty precede the development of microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria, long-term risk factors for renal and cardiovascular disease. We hypothesized that adolescents with high levels of albumin excretion might benefit from angiotensin-converting–enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and statins, drugs that have not been fully evaluated in adolescents.


We screened 4407 adolescents with type 1 diabetes between the ages of 10 and 16 years of age and identified 1287 with values in the upper third of the albumin-to-creatinine ratios; 443 were randomly assigned in a placebo-controlled trial of an ACE inhibitor and a statin with the use of a 2-by-2 factorial design minimizing differences in baseline characteristics such as age, sex, and duration of diabetes. The primary outcome for both interventions was the change in albumin excretion, assessed according to the albumin-to-creatinine ratio calculated from three early-morning urine samples obtained every 6 months over 2 to 4 years, and expressed as the area under the curve. Key secondary outcomes included the development of microalbuminuria, progression of retinopathy, changes in the glomerular filtration rate, lipid levels, and measures of cardiovascular risk (carotid intima–media thickness and levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and asymmetric dimethylarginine).


The primary outcome was not affected by ACE inhibitor therapy, statin therapy, or the combination of the two. The use of an ACE inhibitor was associated with a lower incidence of microalbuminuria than the use of placebo; in the context of negative findings for the primary outcome and statistical analysis plan, this lower incidence was not considered significant (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.35 to 0.94). Statin use resulted in significant reductions in total, low-density lipoprotein, and non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, in triglyceride levels, and in the ratio of apolipoprotein B to apolipoprotein A1, whereas neither drug had significant effects on carotid intima–media thickness, other cardiovascular markers, the glomerular filtration rate, or progression of retinopathy. Overall adherence to the drug regimen was 75%, and serious adverse events were similar across the groups.


The use of an ACE inhibitor and a statin did not change the albumin-to-creatinine ratio over time. (Funded by the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and others; AdDIT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01581476.)