Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of a structured group education programme on biomedical, psychosocial, and lifestyle measures in people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes. Design Multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care with randomisation at practice level. Setting 207 general practices in 13 primary care sites in the United Kingdom. Participants 824 adults (55% men, mean age 59.5 years). Intervention A structured group education programme for six hours delivered in the community by two trained healthcare professional educators compared with usual care. Main outcome measures Haemoglobin A 1c levels, blood pressure, weight, blood lipid levels, smoking status, physical activity, quality of life, beliefs about illness, depression, and emotional impact of diabetes at baseline and up to 12 months. Main results Haemoglobin A 1c levels at 12 months had decreased by 1.49% in the intervention group compared with 1.21% in the control group. After adjusting for baseline and cluster, the difference was not significant: 0.05% (95% confidence interval −0.10% to 0.20%). The intervention group showed a greater weight loss: −2.98 kg (95% confidence interval −3.54 to −2.41) compared with 1.86 kg (−2.44 to −1.28), P=0.027 at 12 months. The odds of not smoking were 3.56 (95% confidence interval 1.11 to 11.45), P=0.033 higher in the intervention group at 12 months. The intervention group showed significantly greater changes in illness belief scores (P=0.001); directions of change were positive indicating greater understanding of diabetes. The intervention group had a lower depression score at 12 months: mean difference was −0.50 (95% confidence interval −0.96 to −0.04); P=0.032. A positive association was found between change in perceived personal responsibility and weight loss at 12 months (β=0.12; P=0.008). Conclusion A structured group education programme for patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes resulted in greater improvements in weight loss and smoking cessation and positive improvements in beliefs about illness but no difference in haemoglobin A 1c levels up to 12 months after diagnosis. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17844016.

BACKGROUNDDespite growing evidence that bariatric/metabolic surgery powerfully improves type 2 diabetes (T2D), existing diabetes treatment algorithms do not include surgical options. AIMThe 2nd Diabetes Surgery Summit (DSS-II), an international consensus conference, was convened in collaboration with leading diabetes organizations to develop global guidelines to inform clinicians and policymakers about benefits and limitations of metabolic surgery for T2D. METHODSA multidisciplinary group of 48 international clinicians/scholars (75% nonsurgeons), including representatives of leading diabetes organizations, participated in DSS-II. After evidence appraisal (MEDLINE [1 January 2005-30 September 2015]), three rounds of Delphi-like questionnaires were used to measure consensus for 32 data-based conclusions. These drafts were presented at the combined DSS-II and 3rd World Congress on Interventional Therapies for Type 2 Diabetes (London, U.K., 28-30 September 2015), where they were open to public comment by other professionals and amended face-to-face by the Expert Committee. RESULTSGiven its role in metabolic regulation, the gastrointestinal tract constitutes a meaningful target to manage T2D. Numerous randomized clinical trials, albeit mostly short/midterm, demonstrate that metabolic surgery achieves excellent glycemic control and reduces cardiovascular risk factors. On the basis of such evidence, metabolic surgery should be recommended to treat T2D in patients with class III obesity (BMI ‡40 kg/m 2 ) and in those with class II obesity (BMI 35.0-39.9 kg/m 2 ) when hyperglycemia is inadequately controlled by lifestyle and optimal medical therapy. Surgery should also be considered for patients with T2D and BMI 30.0-34.9 kg/m 2 if hyperglycemia is inadequately controlled despite optimal treatment with either oral or injectable medications. These BMI thresholds should be reduced by 2.5 kg/m 2 for Asian patients. CONCLUSIONSAlthough additional studies are needed to further demonstrate long-term benefits, there is sufficient clinical and mechanistic evidence to support inclusion of metabolic surgery among antidiabetes interventions for people with T2D and obesity. To date, the DSS-II guidelines have been formally endorsed by 45 worldwide medical and scientific societies. Health care regulators should introduce appropriate reimbursement policies.

IntroductionGlycemic control in participants with insulin-treated diabetes remains challenging. We assessed safety and efficacy of new flash glucose-sensing technology to replace self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG).MethodsThis open-label randomized controlled study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02082184) enrolled adults with type 2 diabetes on intensive insulin therapy from 26 European diabetes centers. Following 2 weeks of blinded sensor wear, 2:1 (intervention/control) randomization (centrally, using biased-coin minimization dependant on study center and insulin administration) was to control (SMBG) or intervention (glucose-sensing technology). Participants and investigators were not masked to group allocation. Primary outcome was difference in HbA1c at 6 months in the full analysis set. Prespecified secondary outcomes included time in hypoglycemia, effect of age, and patient satisfaction.ResultsParticipants (n = 224) were randomized (149 intervention, 75 controls). At 6 months, there was no difference in the change in HbA1c between intervention and controls: −3.1 ± 0.75 mmol/mol, [−0.29 ± 0.07% (mean ± SE)] and −3.4 ± 1.04 mmol/mol (−0.31 ± 0.09%) respectively; p = 0.8222. A difference was detected in participants aged <65 years [−5.7 ± 0.96 mmol/mol (−0.53 ± 0.09%) and −2.2 ± 1.31 mmol/mol (−0.20 ± 0.12%), respectively; p = 0.0301]. Time in hypoglycemia <3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) reduced by 0.47 ± 0.13 h/day [mean ± SE (p = 0.0006)], and <3.1 mmol/L (55 mg/dL) reduced by 0.22 ± 0.07 h/day (p = 0.0014) for intervention participants compared with controls; reductions of 43% and 53%, respectively. SMBG frequency, similar at baseline, decreased in intervention participants from 3.8 ± 1.4 tests/day (mean ± SD) to 0.3 ± 0.7, remaining unchanged in controls. Treatment satisfaction was higher in intervention compared with controls (DTSQ 13.1 ± 0.50 (mean ± SE) and 9.0 ± 0.72, respectively; p < 0.0001). No serious adverse events or severe hypoglycemic events were reported related to sensor data use. Forty-two serious events [16 (10.7%) intervention participants, 12 (16.0%) controls] were not device-related. Six intervention participants reported nine adverse events for sensor-wear reactions (two severe, six moderate, one mild).ConclusionFlash glucose-sensing technology use in type 2 diabetes with intensive insulin therapy results in no difference in HbA1c change and reduced hypoglycemia, thus offering a safe, effective replacement for SMBG.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02082184.FundingAbbott Diabetes Care.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13300-016-0223-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

SummaryBackgroundPregnant 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.MethodsIn 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.FindingsBetween 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...

SummaryPainful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is common, is associated with significant reduction in quality of life and poses major treatment challenges to the practising physician. Although poor glucose control and cardiovascular risk factors have been proven to contribute to the aetiology of DPN, risk factors specific for painful DPN remain unknown. A number of instruments have been tested to assess the character, intensity and impact of painful DPN on quality of life, activities of daily living and mood. Management of the patient with DPN must be tailored to individual requirements, taking into consideration the co-morbidities and other factors. Pharmacological agents with proven efficacy for painful DPN include tricyclic anti-depressants, the selective serotonin and noradrenaline re-uptake inhibitors, anti-convulsants, opiates, membrane stabilizers, the anti-oxidant alpha-lipoic acid and topical agents including capsaicin. Current first-line therapies for painful DPN include tricyclic antidepressants, the serotonin and noradrenaline re-uptake inhibitor duloxetine and the anti-convulsants pregabalin and gabapentin. When prescribing any of these agents, other co-morbidities and costs must be taken into account. Second-line approaches include the use of opiates such as synthetic opioid tramadol, morphine and oxycodone-controlled release. There is a limited literature with regard to combination treatment. In extreme cases of painful DPN unresponsive to pharmacotherapy, occasional use of electrical spinal cord stimulation might be indicated. There are a number of unmet needs in the therapeutic management of painful DPN. These include the need for randomized controlled trials with active comparators and data on the long-term efficacy of agents used, as most trials have lasted for less than 6 months. Finally, there is a need for appropriately designed studies to investigate non-pharmacological approaches.