Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Readings During Patient-Reported Symptomatic Hypoglycemia: Assessment of the Advanced Technologies and Treatments for Diabetes Consensus Definition of CGM-Recorded Hypoglycemia

Relationship Between Sensor-Detected Hypoglycemia and Patient-Reported Hypoglycemia in People With Type 1 and Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes: The Hypo-METRICS Study

OBJECTIVE

Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has led to greater detection of hypoglycemia; the clinical significance of this is not fully understood. The Hypoglycaemia-Measurement, Thresholds and Impacts (Hypo-METRICS) study was designed to investigate the rates and duration of sensor-detected hypoglycemia (SDH) and their relationship with person-reported hypoglycemia (PRH) in people living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (T2D) with prior experience of hypoglycemia.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We recruited 276 participants with T1D and 321 with T2D who wore a blinded CGM and recorded PRH in the Hypo-METRICS app over 10 weeks. Rates of SDH <70 mg/dL, SDH <54 mg/dL, and PRH were expressed as median episodes per week. Episodes of SDH were matched to episodes of PRH that occurred within 1 h.

RESULTS

Median [interquartile range] rates of hypoglycemia were significantly higher in T1D versus T2D; for SDH <70 mg/dL (6.5 [3.8-10.4] vs. 2.1 [0.8-4.0]), SDH <54 mg/dL (1.2 [0.4-2.5] vs. 0.2 [0.0-0.5]), and PRH (3.9 [2.4-5.9] vs. 1.1 [0.5-2.0]). Overall, 65% of SDH <70 mg/dL was not associated with PRH, and 43% of PRH had no associated SDH. The median proportion of SDH associated with PRH in T1D was higher for SDH <70 mg/dL (40% vs. 22%) and SDH <54 mg/dL (47% vs. 25%) than in T2D.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel findings are that at least half of CGM hypoglycemia is asymptomatic, even below 54 mg/dL, and many reported symptomatic hypoglycemia episodes happen above 70 mg/dL. In the clinical and research setting, these episodes cannot be used interchangeably, and both need to be recorded and addressed.

Daytime hypoglycemic episodes during the use of an advanced hybrid closed loop system

AIMS

The use of advanced hybrid closed loop systems is spreading due to the beneficial effects on glycometabolic control obtained in patients with type 1 diabetes. However, hypoglycemic episodes can be sometimes a matter of concern. We aim to compare the hypoglycemic risk of an advanced hybrid closed loop system and a predictive low glucose suspend sensor augmented pump.

METHODS

In this retrospective three months observational study, we included 30 patients using Medtronic Minimed™ 780G advanced hybrid closed loop system and 30 patients using a Medtronic Minimed™ predictive low glucose suspend sensor augmented pump.

RESULTS

The advanced hybrid closed loop system reduced the time spent above 180 mg/dL threshold and increased the time in range as compared to the predictive low glucose suspend. No severe hypoglycemia occurred in both groups and no differences were observed in the percentage of time spent below 70 mg/dl and 54 mg/dl glucose threshold. Nevertheless, more hypoglycemic episodes were recorded during daytime, but not in nighttime, with the use of the advanced hybrid closed loop system.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirmed the general improvement of glycemic outcomes obtained with the advanced hybrid closed loop system; however more hypoglycemic episodes during daytime were evident.

Effect of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 on nocturnal glycaemia assessed by plasma glucose profiles in people with type 1 diabetes prone to nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia

AIM

To compare nocturnal glucose profiles according to hourly plasma glucose measurements during treatment with insulin degludec and insulin glargine U100 in a cohort of people with type 1 diabetes prone to nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The HypoDeg trial is a 2-year investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled crossover trial in 149 participants randomized to treatment with insulin degludec and insulin glargine U100 for 12 months each. The 51 participants in this predefined substudy stayed at least one night in hospital during each treatment arm for plasma glucose samples to be taken. Endpoints were glucose profiles, including mean plasma glucose, glycaemic variability and risk of hypoglycaemia.

RESULTS

There were no differences between treatments regarding mean plasma glucose. We saw a flatter glucose profile during insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine U100 treatment, which had a nadir at 4:00 AM, with a subsequent rise. During treatment with insulin degludec, the participants had lower glycaemic variability, with an estimated treatment difference of -4.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] -8.1 to -0.5; P < 0.05). Participants treated with insulin degludec were less likely to experience nocturnal hypoglycaemia below 3.0 mmol/L (hazard ratio 0.36 [95% CI 0.17-0.73; P < 0.05]).

CONCLUSION

Based on nocturnal plasma glucose measurements, treatment with insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine U100 administered in the evening results in lower glycaemic variability and lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia without differences in mean plasma glucose.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Recorded Hypoglycemia with Insulin Degludec or Insulin Glargine U100 in People with Type 1 Diabetes Prone to Nocturnal Severe Hypoglycemia

Background and Aims: Nocturnal hypoglycemia is mainly a consequence of inappropriate basal insulin therapy in type 1 diabetes (T1D) and may compromise optimal glycemic control. Insulin degludec is associated with a lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia in T1D. As nocturnal hypoglycemia is often asymptomatic, we applied continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to detect a more precise occurrence of nocturnal hypoglycemia in the HypoDeg trial, comparing insulin degludec with insulin glargine U100 in people with T1D and previous nocturnal severe hypoglycemia. Materials and Methods: In the HypoDeg trial, 149 people with T1D were included in an open-label randomized cross-over trial. Sixty-seven participants accepted optional participation in the predefined substudy of 4 × 6 days of blinded CGM requiring completion of at least one CGM period in each treatment arm. CGM data were reviewed for hypoglycemic events. Results: Treatment with insulin degludec resulted in a relative rate reduction (RRR) of 36% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10%-54%; P < 0.05) in nocturnal CGM-recorded hypoglycemia (≤3.9 mmol/L), corresponding to an absolute rate reduction (ARR) of 0.85 events per person-week. In nocturnal CGM-recorded hypoglycemia (≤3.0 mmol/L), we found an RRR of 53% (95% CI: 36%-65%; P < 0.001), corresponding to an ARR of 0.75 events per person-week. At the lower detection limit of the CGM (≤2.2 mmol/L), treatment with insulin degludec resulted in a significant RRR of 58% (95% CI: 23%-77%; P = 0.005). The reductions were primarily due to significant RRRs in asymptomatic hypoglycemia. Conclusion: In people with T1D, prone to nocturnal severe hypoglycemia, insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine U100 significantly reduces nocturnal CGM-recorded hypoglycemia. www.clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT02192450).