No abstract

IntroductionThe prevalence, severity, and quality of life (QoL) impact of diabetic retinopathy (DR) among African–Americans (AAs) with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) undergoing dialysis are unknown.Research design and methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted on 93 AA adults with diabetes and ESKD. The diagnosis of DR was based on a review of medical records and/or a positive photograph with a portable hand-held device reviewed by both artificial intelligence software and a retinal specialist. QoL, physical disability social determinants of health (SDoHs) were assessed by standardized questionnaires.ResultsThe prevalence of DR was 75%, with 33% of participants having mild, 9.6% moderate and 57.4% severe DR. A total of 43% had normal visual acuity; 45% had moderate visual impairment; and 12% had severe visual impairment. We found a high burden of disease, multiple SDoH challenges, and low QoL and general health among patients with ESKD. The presence of DR had no significant impact on physical health and QoL compared with participants without DR.ConclusionsDR is present in 75% of AA patients with diabetes and ESKD on haemodialysis. ESKD has a significant burden on general health and QoL; however, DR has a minor additional impact on the overall physical health and QoL in people with ESKD.

Recent observational and meta-analyses have reported a frailty prevalence between 10% and 25% in people with diabetes, in particular in those older than 60 years of age. The impact of frailty on hospital glycemic control and glycemic variability (GV) by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in insulin-treated older adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is not known. Accordingly, we reviewed data from 3 inpatient randomized clinical trials using CGM in insulin-treated patients with T2D. The validated laboratory-based frailty index (FI-LAB) scale was used for frailty assessment, and participants were categorized into three groups [non-frail: (0-<0.1), pre-frail (≥0.1-<0.21), and frail (≥0.21)] in 84 older adults. | There were no differences on admission clinical characteristics between the non-frail/pre-frail older adults and the frail older adults except for Creatinine (BMI: 32.4 ± 9 vs. 36.83± 13, p=0.21; HbA1c%: 9.3 ± 2 vs. 8.72± 2, p=0.18; Admission BG: 227 ± 114 vs. 194. 07± 75 mg/dl, p=0.26; Cr: 1.16 ± 1 vs. 1.65± 1. 0). There were no differences in GV by coefficient of variation (CV), amplitude of glucose excursion (MAGE), and standard deviation (SD) between the two groups. The correlation between FI-LAB score and percent time with CGM <70 was 0.204 (p=0. 064) and the correlation between FI-LAB score and percent time with percent time with CGM<54 was 0.217 (p=0. 049). Results from standard linear regression and zero-inflated Beta regression further suggest that frail old patients with higher frailty scores may be associated with larger percent time with CGM below range <70 and CGM <54 mg/dL. Conclusion Our results indicate that older adults with T2D with higher frailty score experience more time in hypoglycemia during their hospital stay despite having comparable mean daily blood glucose, time in range and glycemic variability compared to non-frail or pre-frail older adults. A larger prospective study is needed to confirm these findings and determine the impact of frailty on clinical outcome. Providers should be vigilant when using insulin or insulin secretagogues in hospitalized older adults with diabetes and frailty. Presentation: Sunday, June 12, 2022 12:30 p.m. - 2:30 p.m.

Differing blood glucose (BG) targets are recommended by professional organizations in noncritical care settings. Previous Endocrine Society and ADA guidelines recommended a target BG of 70-140 and 140-180 mg/dl; however, the 2023 ADA Standards of Care recommends a target of 100-180 mg/dl. The lack of consensus is due to the lack of randomized clinical trials (RTC) to support a tight vs relaxed BG target. We performed a post-hoc analysis on 9 RCTs to assess hospital outcomes in non-critically ill insulin-treated subjects with T2D targeting BG 70-140 mg/dL vs. 140-180 mg/dL. Among 1446 patients, 640 were treated to a target of 70-140 mg/dl and 806 to a target of 140-180 mg/dL. Propensity score matching was used to reduce the bias including sex, HbA1c, and home insulin use, for a final count of 1,146 patients (573 subjects in each target group). Patients in the tight BG target group had lower mean BG (163.73±39.79 vs 170.15±39.94 mg/dL, p=0.004), less hyperglycemia (BG >180: 86% vs 92%, p=0.003; BG >240: 51% vs 62%, p<.001), similar rates of hypoglycemia (BG <70: 12% vs 15%, p=0.11; BG <54: 2.5% vs 4.0%, p=0.14). The intensive target resulted in a shorter length of stay (4.0 vs 6.0 days, p<.001) and lower composite of complication rate (acute kidney injury, infection, myocardial infarction, respiratory failure and stroke) (3.7% vs 6.8%, p=0.02) than the relaxed BG target, with similar mortality rates (0.9% vs 0.3%, p=0.36). There were no differences in glycemic variability (GV) between groups with greater GV in those experiencing hypoglycemia <70 mg/dL or hyperglycemia >200 mg/dL. Our results indicate that lower BG target of 70-140 mg/dl leads to lower mean daily BG, less severe hyperglycemia events, similar rates of hypoglycemia and glycemic variability, and lower length of stay and complication rates compared to a higher target of 140-180 mg/dl. RCTs are indicated to elucidate optimal glycemic targets in hospitalized patients with T2D. Disclosure J.Saling: None. A.L.Migdal: None. M.A.Urrutia: None. Z.Zabala: None. B.Moazzami: None. R.J.Galindo: Consultant; Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly and Company, Sanofi, Pfizer Inc., Bayer Inc., WW (Weight Watchers), Research Support; Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly and Company, Dexcom, Inc. M.Fayfman: None. A.A.Rashied: None. G.Umpierrez: Research Support; Abbott, Dexcom, Inc., Baxter. Funding Jacob Family Funds

The efficacy of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) in adjusting insulin therapy in long-term care facilities (LTCF) has not been evaluated. Accordingly, we randomized 100 insulin-treated subjects with T2D in LTCF. All subjects underwent point-of-care (POC) capillary glucose testing before meals and bedtime. Patients in the standard of care (POC group) wore a blinded Dexcom G6 CGM with treatment adjusted based on POC results; while in the rt-CGM group (Dexcom G6), treatment adjustment was based on daily CGM profile. Treatment adjustment was performed by the LTC medical team, with a target glucose of 140-180 mg/dL, and a duration of intervention up to 60 days. Primary endpoint was difference between groups in time in range (TIR, 70-180 mg/dL). Results: There were no significant differences in TIR (53.38%±30.16 vs 48.81%±28.03, p=0.40), mean daily glucose (185±44 vs 191 ±47 mg/dL, p=0.72), patients with % CGM values <54 mg/dL (0.23±0.8% vs 0.56±2.2 %, p=0.88), with a trend in reducing time below range (TBR <70 mg/dL) (0.83±2.6 % vs 1.18±3.5%, p= 0.51), between CGM and POC group. Conclusion: The results of this pilot randomized study indicate that the use of Dexcom G6 rtCGM is safe and effective in guiding diabetes therapy in long-term care facilities, resulting in a similar improvement in glycemic control (TIR) without differences in hypoglycemia. Disclosure T.Idrees: None. T.M.Johnson: Consultant; Astellas Pharma Inc., Research Support; Dexcom, Inc. L.Peng: None. G.Umpierrez: Research Support; Abbott, Dexcom, Inc., Baxter. I.A.Castro-revoredo: None. H.Oh: None. M.D.Gavaller: None. Z.Zabala: None. E.M.Moreno: None. B.Moazzami: None. R.J.Galindo: Consultant; Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly and Company, Sanofi, Pfizer Inc., Bayer Inc., WW (Weight Watchers), Research Support; Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly and Company, Dexcom, Inc. E.Cabb: None. Funding Dexcom, Inc. (IIS-2020-119_6X)