Diabetes (type 1 and type 2) in children and young people: diagnosis and management

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

This updated guideline covers the diagnosis and management of type 1 and type 2 diabetes in children and young people aged under 18. The guideline recommends how to support children and young people and their families and carers to maintain tight control of blood glucose to reduce the long-term risks associated with diabetes.

In May 2023, NICE reviewed the evidence and made new recommendations on blood glucose monitoring and management for children and young people with type 2 diabetes. For more details, see the update information.

Full guideline: Diabetes (type 1 and type 2) in children and young people: diagnosis and management

NHS to expand soups and shakes for people with type 2 diabetes

via NHS England

Thousands more people with type 2 diabetes across England will benefit from NHS soup and shake diets, as new data shows its effectiveness at helping people lose weight. The radical programme, first piloted by the NHS in 2020 as part of its Long Term Plan, will expand so that it can provide access to patients in every part of the country by March 2024 – it is currently available in 21 areas of England.

Patients can benefit if they have been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in the last six years with referrals made by local GPs.

Full detail: NHS to expand soups and shakes for people with type 2 diabetes

Diabetes in adults: updated quality standards

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)

NICE has updated and replaced the quality standard on diabetes in adults (published March 2011). The quality standard on diabetes in adults is now split into separate quality standards on type 1 diabetes in adults and type 2 diabetes in adults.

Type 1 diabetes in adults. Quality standard [QS208]
This quality standard covers care and treatment for adults (aged 18 and over) with type 1 diabetes. It describes high-quality care in priority areas for improvement. It does not cover diabetes in children and young people, diabetes in pregnancy or other types of diabetes in adults.

Type 2 diabetes in adults. Quality standard [QS209]
This quality standard covers prevention of type 2 diabetes in adults (aged 18 and over) and care and treatment for adults with type 2 diabetes. It describes high-quality care in priority areas for improvement. It does not cover diabetes in children and young people, diabetes in pregnancy and other types of diabetes in adults.

NHS programme linked to 20% reduction in risk of Diabetes

An NHS behaviour-change programme has been linked to a significant reduction in the risk of developing Type 2 Diabetes in adults with raised blood sugars | University of Manchester | PLoS Medicine

Analysis carried out by University of Manchester researchers shows that when controlling for the characteristics of participants, the risk of Diabetes progression was 20% lower in people with pre-diabetes referred to the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme (NDPP) when compared to similar patients not referred to NDPP. The study, funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), and hosted by Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust, is published in the journal PLoS Medicine.

The NHS Healthier You Diabetes Prevention Programme in England is offered to non-diabetic adults with raised blood sugars – or pre-diabetes – providing exercise and dietary advice to help reduce people’s risk of developing the disease. Latest data shows that over 1.2 million people have been offered support through the programme.

Full detail: NHS programme linked to 20% reduction in risk of Diabetes

Full research paper: Referral to the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme and conversion from nondiabetic hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes mellitus in England: A matched cohort analysis

See also: NHS scheme reduces chances of Type 2 diabetes for at risk adults | NHS England

Characterisation of type 2 diabetes subgroups and their association with ethnicity and clinical outcomes

British Journal of General Practice | Vol. 72 (719): e421-e429 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2021.0508

Subgroups of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) have been well characterised in experimental studies. It is unclear, however, whether the same approaches can be used to characterise T2DM subgroups in UK primary care populations and their associations with clinical outcomes. The aim of this study was to derive T2DM subgroups using primary care data from a multi-ethnic population, evaluate associations with glycaemic control, treatment initiation, and vascular outcomes, and to understand how these vary by ethnicity.

In total, 31 931 adults with T2DM were included: 47% South Asian (n = 14 884), 26% white (n = 8154), 20% black (n = 6423). Two previously described subgroups were replicated, ‘mild age-related diabetes’ (MARD) and ‘mild obesity-related diabetes’ (MOD), and a third was characterised ‘severe hyperglycaemic diabetes’ (SHD). Compared with MARD, SHD had the poorest long-term glycaemic control, fastest initiation of antidiabetic treatment (hazard ratio [HR] 2.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.76 to 2.32), and highest risk of microvascular complications (HR 1.38, 95% CI = 1.28 to 1.49). MOD had the highest risk of macrovascular complications (HR 1.50, 95% CI = 1.23 to 1.82). Subgroup differences in treatment initiation were most pronounced for the white group, and vascular complications for the black group.

Conclusion: Clinically useful T2DM subgroups, identified at diagnosis, can be generated in routine real-world multi-ethnic populations, and may offer a pragmatic means to develop stratified primary care pathways and improve healthcare resource allocation.

Full paper: Characterisation of type 2 diabetes subgroups and their association with ethnicity and clinical outcomes: a UK real-world data study using the East London Database

Diabetes guidance: NICE updates

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence | updated 31st March

Type 1 diabetes in adults: diagnosis and management
This guideline covers care and treatment for adults (aged 18 and over) with type 1 diabetes. It includes advice on diagnosis, education and support, blood glucose management, cardiovascular risk, and identifying and managing long-term complications.

In March 2022, NICE reviewed the evidence and updated the recommendations on diagnosis and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), replacing existing recommendations on diagnosis and CGM.

Type 2 diabetes in adults: management
This guideline covers care and management for adults (aged 18 and over) with type 2 diabetes. It focuses on patient education, dietary advice, managing cardiovascular risk, managing blood glucose levels, and identifying and managing long-term complications.

In March 2022, NICE reviewed the evidence and made new recommendations on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM).

Diabetes (type 1 and type 2) in children and young people: diagnosis and management
This guideline covers the diagnosis and management of type 1 and type 2 diabetes in children and young people aged under 18. The guideline recommends how to support children and young people and their families and carers to maintain tight control of blood glucose to reduce the long-term risks associated with diabetes.

In March 2022, NICE reviewed the evidence and updated the recommendations on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), replacing existing recommendations on CGM.

d-Nav insulin management app for type 2 diabetes

National Institute for Health & Care Excellence | Medtech innovation briefing [MIB285]

  • The technology described in this briefing is d‑Nav. It is an app used for guiding insulin dosing for adults with type 2 diabetes.
  • The innovative aspects are the insulin dose can be calculated and adjusted based on a person’s current and historic blood glucose levels on a weekly basis and without healthcare professional approval.
  • The intended place in therapy would be to help optimise insulin dosage in people with type 2 diabetes.
  • Experts advised that the technology could automate daily insulin dosage requirements when there is not enough staff resource or frequent enough clinical visits to regularly titrate insulin dosage. However, patients need to be carefully selected and would need access to a smartphone and internet.
  • The cost of d‑Nav is about £100 per person per month (excluding VAT). This technology would be used in addition to routine diabetes monitoring appointments.

Full detail: d-Nav insulin management app for type 2 diabetes

Efficacy and safety of low and very low carbohydrate diets for type 2 diabetes remission

Objective To determine the efficacy and safety of low carbohydrate diets (LCDs) and very low carbohydrate diets (VLCDs) for people with type 2 diabetes.

Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources Searches of CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, CAB, and grey literature sources from inception to 25 August 2020.

Study selection Randomized clinical trials evaluating LCDs (<130 g/day or <26% of a 2000 kcal/day diet) and VLCDs (<10% calories from carbohydrates) for at least 12 weeks in adults with type 2 diabetes were eligible.

Data extraction Primary outcomes were remission of diabetes (HbA1c <6.5% or fasting glucose <7.0 mmol/L, with or without the use of diabetes medication), weight loss, HbA1c, fasting glucose, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included health related quality of life and biochemical laboratory data. All articles and outcomes were independently screened, extracted, and assessed for risk of bias and GRADE certainty of evidence at six and 12 month follow-up. Risk estimates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random effects meta-analysis. Outcomes were assessed according to a priori determined minimal important differences to determine clinical importance, and heterogeneity was investigated on the basis of risk of bias and seven a priori subgroups. Any subgroup effects with a statistically significant test of interaction were subjected to a five point credibility checklist.

Results Searches identified 14 759 citations yielding 23 trials (1357 participants), and 40.6% of outcomes were judged to be at low risk of bias. At six months, compared with control diets, LCDs achieved higher rates of diabetes remission (defined as HbA1c <6.5%) (76/133 (57%) v 41/131 (31%); risk difference 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.47; 8 studies, n=264, I2=58%). Conversely, smaller, non-significant effect sizes occurred when a remission definition of HbA1c <6.5% without medication was used. Subgroup assessments determined as meeting credibility criteria indicated that remission with LCDs markedly decreased in studies that included patients using insulin. At 12 months, data on remission were sparse, ranging from a small effect to a trivial increased risk of diabetes. Large clinically important improvements were seen in weight loss, triglycerides, and insulin sensitivity at six months, which diminished at 12 months. On the basis of subgroup assessments deemed credible, VLCDs were less effective than less restrictive LCDs for weight loss at six months. However, this effect was explained by diet adherence. That is, among highly adherent patients on VLCDs, a clinically important reduction in weight was seen compared with studies with less adherent patients on VLCDs. Participants experienced no significant difference in quality of life at six months but did experience clinically important, but not statistically significant, worsening of quality of life and low density lipoprotein cholesterol at 12 months. Otherwise, no significant or clinically important between group differences were found in terms of adverse events or blood lipids at six and 12 months.

Conclusions On the basis of moderate to low certainty evidence, patients adhering to an LCD for six months may experience remission of diabetes without adverse consequences. Limitations include continued debate around what constitutes remission of diabetes, as well as the efficacy, safety, and dietary satisfaction of longer term LCDs.

Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020161795.

Reference: BMJ 2021;372:m4743

Sodium-glucose cotransporter protein-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes

Objective To evaluate sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes at varying cardiovascular and renal risk.

Design Network meta-analysis.

Data sources Medline, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL up to 11 August 2020.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials comparing SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists with placebo, standard care, or other glucose lowering treatment in adults with type 2 diabetes with follow up of 24 weeks or longer. Studies were screened independently by two reviewers for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias.

Main outcome measures Frequentist random effects network meta-analysis was carried out and GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation) used to assess evidence certainty. Results included estimated absolute effects of treatment per 1000 patients treated for five years for patients at very low risk (no cardiovascular risk factors), low risk (three or more cardiovascular risk factors), moderate risk (cardiovascular disease), high risk (chronic kidney disease), and very high risk (cardiovascular disease and kidney disease). A guideline panel provided oversight of the systematic review.

Results 764 trials including 421 346 patients proved eligible. All results refer to the addition of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists to existing diabetes treatment. Both classes of drugs lowered all cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and kidney failure (high certainty evidence). Notable differences were found between the two agents: SGLT-2 inhibitors reduced mortality and admission to hospital for heart failure more than GLP-1 receptor agonists, and GLP-1 receptor agonists reduced non-fatal stroke more than SGLT-2 inhibitors (which appeared to have no effect). SGLT-2 inhibitors caused genital infection (high certainty), whereas GLP-1 receptor agonists might cause severe gastrointestinal events (low certainty). Low certainty evidence suggested that SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists might lower body weight. Little or no evidence was found for the effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists on limb amputation, blindness, eye disease, neuropathic pain, or health related quality of life. The absolute benefits of these drugs vary substantially across patients from low to very high risk of cardiovascular and renal outcomes (eg, SGLT-2 inhibitors resulted in 5 to 48 fewer deaths in 1000 patients over five years; see interactive decision support tool (https://magicevidence.org/match-it/200820dist/#!/) for all outcomes.

Conclusions In patients with type 2 diabetes, SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists reduced cardiovascular and renal outcomes, with notable differences in benefits and harms. Absolute benefits are determined by individual risk profiles of patients, with clear implications for clinical practice, as reflected in the BMJ Rapid Recommendations directly informed by this systematic review.

Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019153180.

Reference: BMJ 2021;372:m4573

Once-Weekly Insulin for Type 2 Diabetes without Previous Insulin Treatment

BACKGROUND

It is thought that a reduction in the frequency of basal insulin injections might facilitate treatment acceptance and adherence among patients with type 2 diabetes. Insulin icodec is a basal insulin analogue designed for once-weekly administration that is in development for the treatment of diabetes.

METHODS

We conducted a 26-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, phase 2 trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of once-weekly insulin icodec as compared with once-daily insulin glargine U100 in patients who had not previously received long-term insulin treatment and whose type 2 diabetes was inadequately controlled (glycated hemoglobin level, 7.0 to 9.5%) while taking metformin with or without a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor. The primary end point was the change in glycated hemoglobin level from baseline to week 26. Safety end points, including episodes of hypoglycemia and insulin-related adverse events, were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 247 participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive icodec or glargine. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups; the mean baseline glycated hemoglobin level was 8.09% in the icodec group and 7.96% in the glargine group. The estimated mean change from baseline in the glycated hemoglobin level was −1.33 percentage points in the icodec group and −1.15 percentage points in the glargine group, to estimated means of 6.69% and 6.87%, respectively, at week 26; the estimated between-group difference in the change from baseline was −0.18 percentage points (95% CI, –0.38 to 0.02, P=0.08). The observed rates of hypoglycemia with severity of level 2 (blood glucose level, <54 mg per deciliter) or level 3 (severe cognitive impairment) were low (icodec group, 0.53 events per patient-year; glargine group, 0.46 events per patient-year; estimated rate ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.45 to 2.65). There was no between-group difference in insulin-related key adverse events, and rates of hypersensitivity and injection-site reactions were low. Most adverse events were mild, and no serious events were deemed to be related to the trial medications.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-weekly treatment with insulin icodec had glucose-lowering efficacy and a safety profile similar to those of once-daily insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; NN1436-4383 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03751657. opens in new tab.)

Reference: N Engl J Med 2020; 383:2107-2116