Flash glucose monitoring in diabetic dogs: a feasible method for evaluating glycemic control

A dose titration protocol for once-daily insulin glargine 300 U/mL for the treatment of diabetes mellitus in dogs

BACKGROUND

In purpose-bred dogs, insulin glargine 300 U/mL (IGla300) has long duration of action, peakless time-action profile, and low potency, making it suitable for use as a basal insulin.

HYPOTHESIS

To evaluate IGla300 in client-owned diabetic dogs monitored using a flash glucose monitoring system (FGMS).

ANIMALS

Ninety-five client-owned diabetic dogs, newly diagnosed or previously treated with other insulin formulations, with or without concurrent diseases.

METHODS

Prospective multi-institutional study. Clinical signs and standardized assessment of FGMS data, using treatment and monitoring guidelines established a priori, guided dose adjustments and categorization into levels of glycemic control.

RESULTS

The initial IGla300 dose was 0.5 U/Kg q24h for newly diagnosed dogs and (median dose [range]) 0.8 U/Kg (0.2-2.5) q24h for all dogs. Glycemic control was classified as good or excellent in 87/95 (92%) dogs. The IGla300 was administered q24h (1.9 U/kg [0.2-5.2]) and q12h (1.9 U/kg/day [0.6-5.0]) in 56/95 (59%) and 39/95 (41%) dogs, respectively. Meal-time bolus injections were added in 5 dogs (0.5 U/kg/injection [0.3-1.0]). Clinical hypoglycemia occurred in 6/95 (6%) dogs. Dogs without concurrent diseases were more likely to receive IGla300 q24h than dogs with concurrent diseases (72% vs 50%, respectively; P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE

Insulin glargine 300 U/mL can be considered a suitable therapeutic option for once-daily administration in diabetic dogs. Clinicians should be aware of the low potency and wide dose range of IGla300. In some dogs, twice-daily administration with or without meal-time bolus injections may be necessary to achieve glycemic control. Monitoring with FGMS is essential for dose titration of IGla300.

Short-term glycemic variability in non-diabetic, non-obese dogs assessed by common glycemic variability indices

Glycemic variability (GV) refers to swings in blood glucose levels and is an emerging measure of glycemic control in clinical practice. It is associated with micro- and macrovascular complications and poor clinical outcomes in diabetic humans. Although an integral part of patient assessment in human patients, it is to a large extent neglected in insulin-treated diabetic dogs. This prospective pilot study was performed to describe canine within-day GV in non-diabetic dogs with the aim to provide a basis for the interpretation of daily glucose profiles, and to promote GV as an accessible tool for future studies in veterinary medicine. Interstitial glucose concentrations of ten non-diabetic, non-obese beagles were continuously measured over a 48-h period using a flash glucose monitoring system. GV was assessed using the common indices MAGE (mean amplitude of glycemic excursion), GVP (Glycemic variability percentage) and CV (coefficient of variation). A total of 2260 sensor measurements were obtained, ranging from 3.7 mmol/L (67 mg/dL) to 8.5 mmol/L (153 mg/dL). Glucose profiles suggested a meal-dependent circadian rhythmicity with small but significant surges during the feeding periods. No differences in GV indices were observed between day and night periods (p > 0.05). The MAGE (mmol/L), GVP (%) and CV (%) were 0.86 (± 0.19), 7.37 (± 1.65), 6.72 (± 0.89) on day one, and 0.83 (± 0.18), 6.95 (± 1.52), 6.72 (± 1.53) on day two, respectively. The results of this study suggest that GV is low in non-diabetic dogs and that glucose concentrations are kept within narrow ranges.

Monitoring of Diabetes Mellitus Using the Flash Glucose Monitoring System: The Owners' Point of View

The flash glucose monitoring system (FGMS) has recently become one of the most common monitoring methods in dogs and cats with diabetes mellitus. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of FGMS on the quality of life of diabetic pet owners (DPOs). Fifty DPOs were asked to answer a 30-question survey. More than 80% of DPOs considered FGMS easier to use and less stressful and painful for the animal compared to blood glucose curves (BGCs). Overall, 92% of DPOs reported that their pet had better diabetes control since using FGMS. The most challenging aspects of using the FGMS were ensuring proper sensor fixation during the wearing period (47%), preventing premature detachment (40%), and purchasing the sensor (34%). Moreover, 36% of DPOs reported that the device cost was difficult to afford in the long term. Comparing dogs and cats, a significantly higher number of dogs' owners found the FGMS to be well-tolerated (79% vs. 40%), less invasive than BGCs (79% vs. 43%), and easier to maintain in situ (76% vs. 43%). In conclusion, FGMS is considered by DPOs to be easy to use and less stressful compared to BGCs, while enabling better glycemic control. Nevertheless, the costs related to its long-term use might be difficult to sustain.

Clinical Use of a 180-Day Implantable Glucose Monitoring System in Dogs with Diabetes Mellitus: A Case Series

Simple Summary

A novel continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) equipped with a long-term sensor has recently been developed for humans with diabetes mellitus. The sensor is inserted under the skin and continuously measures the glucose in the interstitial fluid over a period of up to 180 days. The aim of this study was to describe, for the first time, the clinical use of this novel CGMS in three diabetic dogs (DD). The insertion and use of the device were straightforward and well tolerated by the dogs. Some device-related issues, such as sensor dislocation and trouble with daily calibrations, were reported. A good correlation between the glucose values measured by this CGMS and those obtained with a flash glucose monitoring system and a portable-blood glucose meter, previously validated for use in DD, was found (rs = 0.85 and rs = 0.81, respectively). The functional life of the sensor was 180 days in two of the three dogs, and the use of the device provided high satisfaction to the owners. This innovative device might be considered a future alternative for continuous glucose monitoring in dogs with diabetes mellitus.

Abstract

The novel Eversense XL continuous glucose monitoring system (Senseonics, Inc., Germantown, Maryland) has recently been developed for monitoring diabetes in humans. The sensor is fully implanted and has a functional life of up to 180 days. The present study describes the use of Eversense XL in three diabetic dogs (DD) with good glycemic control managed by motivated owners. The insertion and use of the device were straightforward and well tolerated by the dogs. During the wearing period, some device-related drawbacks, such as sensor dislocation and daily calibrations, were reported. A good correlation between the glucose values measured by the Eversense XL and those obtained with two commercially available devices, previously validated for use in DD, was found (r_s = 0.85 and r_s = 0.81, respectively). The life of the sensor was 180 days in two of the DD and provided high satisfaction. This innovative device might be considered a future alternative for home glucose monitoring in DD.

Evaluation of fructosamine concentration as an index marker for glycaemic control in diabetic dogs

BACKGROUND

Although fructosamine is a commonly used surrogate marker to assess glycaemic control in diabetic dogs, its diagnostic accuracy has been questioned. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the reliability of fructosamine measurements to diagnose well and poorly controlled diabetes mellitus (DM), using continuous glucose monitoring as a gold standard.

METHODS

Twenty-four dogs with treated DM and continuous glucose monitoring for mean (±SD) 13.1 (±1.7) days were retrospectively analysed. Two assessment strategies were applied to categorize glycaemic control, and fructosamine concentrations were determined shortly after sensor cessation using a colorimetric assay.

RESULTS

Correlations of individual fructosamine concentrations with mean glucose as well as percentage of measurements > 15 mmol/L were not significant (p = 0.372, p = 0.129). Fructosamine did not differ between dogs with and without hypoglycaemic episodes (p = 0.64). Receiver operating characteristic analysis for fructosamine to diagnose either good or poor glycaemic control revealed AUC values of 0.71 (p = 0.025) indicating moderate accuracy, and 0.7 (p = 0.135) indicating AUC is non-discriminatory, respectively. The respective positive likelihood ratios for the optimal cutoffs to identify good (<396 μmol/L) and poor control (>449 μmol/L) were three.

CONCLUSIONS

Fructosamine measurement is an imperfect surrogate marker for classifying glycaemic control in diabetic dogs and can only complement serial glucose measurements.