International Forum for the Advancement of Diabetes Research and Care, April 29-30, 2011, Athens, Greece

Abstract

The International Forum for the Advancement of Diabetes Research and Care brought together distinguished international experts in diabetes to discuss diverse trends and emerging issues in diabetes therapy and management. The plenary sessions on the first day focused on trends in insulin therapy, the role of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in diabetes treatment, the relationship between diabetes and cardiovascular risk, and the challenges associated with the development of clinically relevant treatment guidelines. Interactive breakout sessions addressed the following topics: microvascular complications of diabetes; the need for a team approach to patient education; optimal management of Asian people with diabetes; the role of continuous glucose monitoring in assessing glucose variability; and lessons learned from biosimilar drugs. The plenary sessions on the second day covered self-monitoring of blood glucose, treatment and prevention of type 1 diabetes, and future directions for diabetes therapy. The meeting represented an excellent forum for the presentation of new research and the exchange of ideas aimed at improving outcomes for people with diabetes.

FIG. 1.

Plasma glucose after a subcutaneous injection of neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) (gray circles), detemir (open circles), or glargine (solid circles) insulin in type 2 diabetes patients (n=18). s.c., subcutaneous. Adapted from Lucidi et al.

FIG. 2.

Glycemic outcomes of the GINGER study. (A) Hemoglobin A1c (HbA_1c) reductions seen in the GINGER study using premix insulin, twice daily, 91 U/day (solid line), or a basal–bolus regimen, insulins glargine + glulisine, 98 U/day (dashed line). A larger fall in HbA_1c is seen using basal–bolus compared with premix (−1.31% vs. −0.80%, P=0.0001). (B) Percentage of patients achieving HbA_1c <7.0% using premix insulin or a glulisine + glargine basal–bolus regimen. More reached HbA_1c <7% using glulisine + glargine compared with premixed insulin (46.6% vs. 27.9%, P=0.0004). HbA_1c data are unadjusted mean±SE values. Adapted from Fritsche et al.

FIG. 3.

The Phase III GetGoal program: approximate timelines of 10 studies supporting lixisenatide registration. SU, sulfonylurea.

FIG. 4.

Outcomes of integrated diabetes education and care: a comparison of hemoglobin A1c (HbA_1c) levels at baseline (solid columns) and 1 year after initiation of a peer education/empowerment program (open columns) in control and intervention groups (n=153). *P<0.0001 intervention versus control. Adapted from Philis-Tsimikas et al.

FIG. 5.

Ambulatory glucose profiles obtained via continuous glucose monitoring of (a) an individual without diabetes with normal glucose metabolism and (b) an individual with type 2 diabetes and abnormal glucose metabolism. AUC, area under the curve; BMI, body mass index; CGM, continuous glucose monitoring; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; HbA1c, hemoglobin A1c; Ht, height; IQR, interquartile range; Max, maximum; Min, minimum; SBP, systolic blood pressure; Wt, weight. [Source of data: International Diabetes Center, St. Louis Park, Minnesota]