Continuous glucose monitoring in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes: an observational cohort study of 186 pregnancies

14. Management of Diabetes in Pregnancy: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2021

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2021

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Glyburide therapy for gestational diabetes: Glycaemic control, maternal hypoglycaemia, and treatment failure

AIMS

The recommended first-line treatment for women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in the case of failure of diet is insulin. Recent results suggest that there is a potential role for glyburide therapy and highlight the need for better knowledge of glycaemic control with glyburide. The objective of this study was to describe and quantify in women with GDM the quality of glycaemic control, including the risk of maternal hypoglycaemia and of therapy failure.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of the French INDAO non-inferiority trial from 2012 to 2016, in which 890 women with GDM randomized to receive glyburide or insulin treatment were compared for perinatal outcomes. Blood glucose concentrations were assessed prospectively during pregnancy. Optimal glycaemic control was defined as less than 20% of blood glucose values exceeding the targets.

RESULTS

More than 50% of the women had optimal glycaemic control with glyburide, similar to that with insulin. Around 40% of the women had at least one episode of hypoglycaemia, more than with insulin. However, those hypoglycaemic episodes were mostly moderate and the rate of severe hypoglycaemia decreased significantly during the course of the trial. Failure of glyburide treatment (switch to insulin therapy) occurred in 18% of women and had few predictors. However, when failure occurred, glycaemic control was improved after switching to insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

Glyburide is an effective treatment for reaching glycaemic goals during pregnancy in women with GDM. The risk of maternal hypoglycaemia may be minimized by clinical practice experience. These findings could be taken into account in the management of GDM.

Hypoglycaemia and its management in primary care setting

Hypoglycaemia is common in patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes and constitutes a major limiting factor in achieving glycaemic control among people with diabetes. While hypoglycaemia is defined as a blood glucose level under 70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L), symptoms may occur at higher blood glucose levels in individuals with poor glycaemic control. Severe hypoglycaemia is defined as an episode requiring the assistance of another person to actively administer carbohydrate, glucagon, or take other corrective actions to assure neurologic recovery. Hypoglycaemia is the most important safety outcome in clinical studies of glucose lowering agents. The American Diabetes Association Standards of Medical Care recommends that a management protocol for hypoglycaemia should be designed and implemented by every hospital, along with a clear prevention and treatment plan. A tailored approach, using clinical and pathophysiologic disease stratification, can help individualize glycaemic goals and promote new therapies to improve quality of life of patients. Data from recent large clinical trials reported low risk of hypoglycaemic events with the use of newer anti-diabetic drugs. Increased hypoglycaemia risk is observed with the use of insulin and/or sulphonylureas. Vulnerable patients with T2D at dual risk of severe hypoglycaemia and cardiovascular outcomes show features of "frailty." Many of such patients may be better treated by the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists or SGLT2 inhibitors rather than insulin. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) should be considered for all individuals with increased risk for hypoglycaemia, impaired hypoglycaemia awareness, frequent nocturnal hypoglycaemia and with history of severe hypoglycaemia. Patients with impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia benefit from real-time CGM. The diabetes educator is an invaluable resource and can devote the time needed to thoroughly educate the individual to reduce the risk of hypoglycaemia and integrate the information within the entire construct of diabetes self-management. Conversations about hypoglycaemia facilitated by a healthcare professional may reduce the burden and fear of hypoglycaemia among patients with diabetes and their family members. Optimizing insulin doses and carbohydrate intake, in addition to a short warm up before or after the physical activity sessions may help avoiding hypoglycaemia. Several therapeutic considerations are important to reduce hypoglycaemia risk during pregnancy including administration of rapid-acting insulin analogues rather than human insulin, pre-conception initiation of insulin analogues, and immediate postpartum insulin dose reduction.

Leveraging technology for the treatment of type 1 diabetes in pregnancy: A review of past, current, and future therapeutic tools

The significant risks associated with pregnancies complicated by type 1 diabetes (T1D) were first recognized in the medical literature in the mid-twentieth century. Stringent glycemic control with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) values ideally less than 6% has been shown to improve maternal and fetal outcomes. The management options for pregnant women with T1D in the modern era include a variety of technologies to support self-care. Although self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) and multiple daily injections (MDI) are often the recommended management options during pregnancy, many people with T1D utilize a variety of different technologies, including continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), and CSII including automated delivery or suspension algorithms. These systems have yielded invaluable diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities and have the potential to benefit this understudied higher-risk group. A recent prospective, multicenter study evaluating pregnant patients with T1D revealed that CGM significantly improves maternal glycemic parameters, is associated with fewer adverse neonatal outcomes, and minimizes burden. Outcome data for CSII, which is approved for use in pregnancy and has been utilized for several decades, remain mixed. Current evidence, although limited, for commercially available and emerging technologies for the management of T1D in pregnancy holds promise for improving patient and fetal outcomes.

Diabetes und Schwangerschaft – Update 2020

In einer kurzen Übersicht werden die aktuellen Erkenntnisse zur Coronaviruserkrankung 2019 (COVID-19) bei Schwangeren dargestellt. Selbstmonitoring der kapillaren Blutglukosewerte ist derzeit noch der Goldstandard bei Schwangeren. Bei Verwendung subkutaner Glukosesensoren sollte die „time in range“ (TIR) >70 % in dem Bereich 63–140 mg/dl (3,5–7,8 mmol/l) so früh wie möglich erreicht werden. Bei präexistentem Diabetes besteht bei Kindern mit einer Wachstumsrestriktion ein hohes Risiko für Totgeburten. Mangels nachgewiesener Verbesserung relevanter Endpunkte sollten pharmakologische Therapien bei Schwangeren mit frühem Gestationsdiabetes <24 + 0 Schwangerschaftswochen besonders kritisch abgewogen werden. Präkonzeptionell adipöse Frauen sollten bis zur Geburt nicht mehr als 6 kg zunehmen. Nach bariatrisch-metabolischer Chirurgie bestehen neben Vorteilen für die Mütter erhöhte Risiken für Neugeborene, z. B. eine erhöhte Rate an „small for gestational age“ nach Roux-en-Y-Magenbypass.

A review of gestational diabetes mellitus management, risk factors, maternal and neonatal outcomes in two major maternity hospitals in the United Arab Emirates: A report from Dubai

OBJECTIVES

This study was conducted in order to explore and analyze the status of gestational diabetes (GDM) amongst pregnant women in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE); a country with high prevalence of diabetes. We aimed to describe GDM-associated risk factors and clinical outcomes of pregnant women and their neonates. Our objective was to contribute to the broader literature on reproductive health disparities and to inform efforts to improve GDM care at our region.

METHODS

Chart review of case records were used to collect data on both maternal and neonatal parameters and outcomes during the specified study period from two main maternity hospitals in Dubai.

RESULTS

UAE national women with GDM were more prone to be obese or overweight compared to non-UAE women (p < 0.0001, and p < 0.0001 respectively). In addition, UAE national women with GDM had higher history of GDM in previous pregnancies (p < 0.0001) and more family history of diabetes (p < 0.0001).The neonate admission into NICU was significantly associated with cesarean section (p < 0.0001), twins (p < 0.0001), preeclampsia (p = 0.02), receiving MgSO4 (p = 0.02), birth weight less than 2500 g (p < 0.0001), low Apgar scores (p < 0.0001), baby with congenital anomaly (p < 0.0001), and neonatal hypoglycemia (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate that pregnant women with GDM who are UAE nationals and have higher parity need to be under special attention during their pregnancy in order to improve both maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Pregnancy: Importance of Analyzing Temporal Profiles to Understand Clinical Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To determine if temporal glucose profiles differed between 1) women who were randomized to real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) or self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG), 2) women who used insulin pumps or multiple daily insulin injections (MDIs), and 3) women whose infants were born large for gestational age (LGA) or not, by assessing CGM data obtained from the Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Women With Type 1 Diabetes in Pregnancy Trial (CONCEPTT).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Standard summary metrics and functional data analysis (FDA) were applied to CGM data from the CONCEPTT trial (RT-CGM, n = 100; SMBG, n = 100) taken at baseline and at 24- and 34-weeks' gestation. Multivariable regression analysis determined if temporal differences in 24-h glucose profiles occurred between comparators in each of the three groups.

RESULTS

FDA revealed that women using RT-CGM had significantly lower glucose (0.4-0.8 mmol/L [7-14 mg/dL]) for 7 h/day (0800 h to 1200 h and 1600 h to 1900 h) compared with those with SMBG. Women using pumps had significantly higher glucose (0.4-0.9 mmol/L [7-16 mg/dL]) for 12 h/day (0300 h to 0600 h, 1300 h to 1800 h, and 2030 h to 0030 h) at 24 weeks with no difference at 34 weeks compared with MDI. Women who had an LGA infant ran a significantly higher glucose by 0.4-0.7 mmol/L (7-13 mg/dL) for 4.5 h/day at baseline, by 0.4-0.9 mmol/L (7-16 mg/dL) for 16 h/day at 24 weeks, and by 0.4-0.7 mmol/L (7-13 mg/dL) for 14 h/day at 34 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

FDA of temporal glucose profiles gives important information about differences in glucose control and its timing, which are undetectable by standard summary metrics. Women using RT-CGM were able to achieve better daytime glucose control, reducing fetal exposure to maternal glucose.

Glycemic variability modifies the relationship between time in range and hemoglobin A1c estimated from continuous glucose monitoring: A preliminary study

AIMS

Although there is a linear relationship between time in range (TIR) and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), a great variability of calculated TIR values for a given HbA1c, and vice versa, has been reported. Whether glycemic variability accounts for part of this variability remains to be investigated.

METHODS

The data of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) from 2559 patients with type 2 diabetes was analyzed. Glycemic variability was assessed by glucose coefficient of variation (CV), and estimated HbA1C (eHbA1c) was calculated from mean sensor glucose.

RESULTS

A strong correlation between TIR and eHbA1c (r = -0.908) was observed. The slopes of regression lines fitted to TIR values as a function of eHbA1c differed significantly for individuals with varying degrees of CV, especially when patients were stratified as stable (CV < 36%) or unstable (CV ≥ 36%) glucose levels. For patients in the high- or low-range of eHbA1c, there was a high variability of TIR values according to CV.

CONCLUSIONS

Glycemic variability significantly mediates the relationship between TIR and eHbA1c, and should be taken into consideration when setting an individualized target of TIR.

Positioning time in range in diabetes management

Recent upswings in the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technologies have given people with diabetes and healthcare professionals unprecedented access to a range of new indicators of glucose control. Some of these metrics are useful research tools and others have been welcomed by patient groups for providing insights into the quality of glucose control not captured by conventional laboratory testing. Among the latter, time in range (TIR) is an intuitive metric that denotes the proportion of time that a person's glucose level is within a desired target range (usually 3.9-10.0 mmol/l [3.5-7.8 mmol/l in pregnancy]). For individuals choosing to use CGM technology, TIR is now often part of the expected conversation between patient and healthcare professional, and consensus recommendations have recently been produced to facilitate the adoption of standardised TIR targets. At a regulatory level, emerging evidence linking TIR to risk of complications may see TIR being more widely accepted as a valid endpoint in future clinical trials. However, given the skewed distribution of possible glucose values outside of the target range, TIR (on its own) is a poor indicator of the frequency or severity of hypoglycaemia. Here, the state-of-the-art linking TIR with complications risk in diabetes and the inverse association between TIR and HbA_1c are reviewed. Moreover, the importance of including the amount and severity of time below range (TBR) in any discussions around TIR and, by inference, time above range (TAR) is discussed. This review also summarises recent guidance in setting 'time in ranges' goals for individuals with diabetes who wish to make use of these metrics. For most people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, a TIR >70%, a TBR <3.9 mmol/l of <4%, and a TBR <3.0 mmol/l of <1% are recommended targets, with less stringent targets for older or high-risk individuals and for those under 25 years of age. As always though, glycaemic targets should be individualised and rarely is that more applicable than in the personal use of CGM and the data it provides.

Time in range: a new parameter to evaluate blood glucose control in patients with diabetes

The International Consensus in Time in Range (TIR) was recently released and defined the concept of the time spent in the target range between 70 and 180 mg/dL while reducing time in hypoglycemia, for patients using Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM). TIR was validated as an outcome measures for clinical Trials complementing other components of glycemic control like Blood glucose and HbA1c. The challenge is to implement this practice more widely in countries with a limited health public and private budget as it occurs in Brazil. Could CGM be used intermittently? Could self-monitoring blood glucose obtained at different times of the day, with the amount of data high enough be used? More studies should be done, especially cost-effective studies to help understand the possibility of having sensors and include TIR evaluation in clinical practice nationwide.

14. Management of Diabetes in Pregnancy: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2020

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Clinical Targets for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data Interpretation: Recommendations From the International Consensus on Time in Range

Improvements in sensor accuracy, greater convenience and ease of use, and expanding reimbursement have led to growing adoption of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). However, successful utilization of CGM technology in routine clinical practice remains relatively low. This may be due in part to the lack of clear and agreed-upon glycemic targets that both diabetes teams and people with diabetes can work toward. Although unified recommendations for use of key CGM metrics have been established in three separate peer-reviewed articles, formal adoption by diabetes professional organizations and guidance in the practical application of these metrics in clinical practice have been lacking. In February 2019, the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) Congress convened an international panel of physicians, researchers, and individuals with diabetes who are expert in CGM technologies to address this issue. This article summarizes the ATTD consensus recommendations for relevant aspects of CGM data utilization and reporting among the various diabetes populations.

Clinical Targets for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data Interpretation: Recommendations From the International Consensus on Time in Range

Improvements in sensor accuracy, greater convenience and ease of use, and expanding reimbursement have led to growing adoption of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). However, successful utilization of CGM technology in routine clinical practice remains relatively low. This may be due in part to the lack of clear and agreed-upon glycemic targets that both diabetes teams and people with diabetes can work toward. Although unified recommendations for use of key CGM metrics have been established in three separate peer-reviewed articles, formal adoption by diabetes professional organizations and guidance in the practical application of these metrics in clinical practice have been lacking. In February 2019, the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) Congress convened an international panel of physicians, researchers, and individuals with diabetes who are expert in CGM technologies to address this issue. This article summarizes the ATTD consensus recommendations for relevant aspects of CGM data utilization and reporting among the various diabetes populations.

Continuous glucose monitoring targets in type 1 diabetes pregnancy: every 5% time in range matters

With randomised trial data confirming that continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is associated with improvements in maternal glucose control and neonatal health outcomes, CGM is increasingly used in antenatal care. Across pregnancy, the ambition is to increase the CGM time in range (TIR), while reducing time above range (TAR), time below range (TBR) and glycaemic variability measures. Pregnant women with type 1 diabetes currently spend, on average, 50% (12 h), 55% (13 h) and 60% (14 h) in the target range of 3.5-7.8 mmol/l (63-140 mg/dl) during the first, second and third trimesters, respectively. Hyperglycaemia, as measured by TAR, reduces from 40% (10 h) to 33% (8 h) during the first to third trimester. A TIR of >70% (16 h, 48 min) and a TAR of <25% (6 h) is achieved only in the final weeks of pregnancy. CGM TBR data are particularly sensor dependent, but regardless of the threshold used for individual patients, spending ≥4% of time (1 h) below 3.5 mmol/l or ≥1% of time (15 min) below 3.0 mmol/l is not recommended. While maternal hyperglycaemia is a well-established risk factor for obstetric and neonatal complications, CGM-based risk factors are emerging. A 5% lower TIR and 5% higher TAR during the second and third trimesters is associated with increased risk of large for gestational age infants, neonatal hypoglycaemia and neonatal intensive care unit admissions. For optimal neonatal outcomes, women and clinicians should aim for a TIR of >70% (16 h, 48 min) and a TAR of <25% (6 h), from as early as possible during pregnancy.