Effect of prandial treatment timing adjustment, based on continuous glucose monitoring, in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled with once-daily basal insulin: A randomized, phase IV study

The use of technology in type 2 diabetes and prediabetes: a narrative review

The increasing incidence of type 2 diabetes, which represents 90% of diabetes cases globally, is a major public health concern. Improved glucose management reduces the risk of vascular complications and mortality; however, only a small proportion of the type 2 diabetes population have blood glucose levels within the recommended treatment targets. In recent years, diabetes technologies have revolutionised the care of people with type 1 diabetes, and it is becoming increasingly evident that people with type 2 diabetes can also benefit from these advances. In this review, we describe the current knowledge regarding the role of technologies for people living with type 2 diabetes and the evidence supporting their use in clinical practice. We conclude that continuous glucose monitoring systems deliver glycaemic benefits for individuals with type 2 diabetes, whether treated with insulin or non-insulin therapy; further data are required to evaluate the role of these systems in those with prediabetes (defined as impaired glucose tolerance and/or impaired fasting glucose and/or HbA1c levels between 39 mmol/mol [5.7%] and 47 mmol/mol [6.4%]). The use of insulin pumps seems to be safe and effective in people with type 2 diabetes, especially in those with an HbA1c significantly above target. Initial results from studies exploring the impact of closed-loop systems in type 2 diabetes are promising. We discuss directions for future research to fully understand the potential benefits of integrating evidence-based technology into care for people living with type 2 diabetes and prediabetes.

Flash glucose monitoring in type 2 diabetes managed with basal insulin in the USA: a retrospective real-world chart review study and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Evidence supporting use of continuous glucose monitoring in type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin is unclear. This real-world study aimed to assess the impact on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of flash glucose monitoring use in adults with type 2 diabetes managed with basal insulin.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Medical records were reviewed for adult individuals with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin for ≥1 year with or without additional antihyperglycemic medication, HbA1c 8.0%-12.0% prior to FreeStyle Libre Flash Glucose Monitoring use for ≥90 days and an HbA1c measurement recorded between 90 and 194 days after device use. Exclusion criteria included utilization of bolus insulin. Meta-analysis data are from the current study (USA) and a similar Canadian cohort.

RESULTS

Medical record analysis (n=100) from 8 USA study sites showed significant HbA1c decrease of 1.4%±1.3%, from 9.4%±1.0% at baseline to 8.0%±1.2% after device use, p<0.0001 (mean±SD).Meta-analysis of medical records from USA and Canada sites (n=191) showed HbA1c significantly decreased by 1.1%±0.14% (mean±SE), from baseline 9.2%±1.0% to 8.1%±1.1%, p≤0.0001, with moderate to high heterogeneity between sites (Q=43.9, I²=74.9, p<0.0001) explained by differences in baseline HbA1c between sites.The HbA1c improvement in both groups was observed by age group, body mass index, duration of insulin use and sex at birth.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world retrospective USA study and a meta-analysis of a larger USA and Canada cohort, HbA1c significantly reduced in basal insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, without bolus insulin initiation and following the commencement of flash glucose monitoring technology.

The impact of flash glucose monitoring on glycated hemoglobin in type 2 diabetes managed with basal insulin in Canada: A retrospective real-world chart review study

BACKGROUND

The real-world effect of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring on glucose control in type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin is uncertain. This retrospective real-world study aimed to evaluate change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) amongst adults with type 2 diabetes managed with basal insulin starting flash glucose monitoring.

METHODS

Medical records were reviewed for adults with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin for ⩾1 year and using FreeStyle Libre^TM Flash Glucose Monitoring for ⩾3 months. Prior to device use an HbA1c 8.0%-12.0% was recorded and a further HbA1c result was recorded 3-6 months (90-194 days) after starting device use.

RESULTS

Medical records (n = 91) analyzed from six Canadian diabetes centers showed HbA1c significantly decreased by 0.8% ± 1.1 (mean ± SD, [p < 0.0001]) from mean baseline HbA1c 8.9% ± 0.9 to 8.1% ± 1.0 at 3-6 months after initiating flash glucose monitoring. HbA1c improvement was not independently associated with age, BMI, insulin use duration, or sex.

CONCLUSION

This Canadian real-world retrospective study showed significantly reduced HbA1c following initiation of flash glucose monitoring technology to further support management of type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin.

Impact of technology on glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis of randomized trials on continuous glucose monitoring and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion

AIM

To conduct a meta-analysis to assess the effect of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and the combination of the two, on glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The analysis included randomized clinical trials comparing CSII with multiple daily injections (MDI) in people with type 2 diabetes, as well as studies comparing CGM or flash glucose monitoring (FGM) with self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), with a duration of at least 12 weeks, identified in Medline or clinicaltrials.gov. The principal endpoint was glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) at the end of the trial. Mean and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for HbA1c and Mantel-Haenzel odds ratios for severe hypoglycaemia were calculated, using random-effect models.

RESULTS

The retrieved trials showed a significant heterogeneity (I² = 90%). The difference in HbA1c between CSII and MDI was not statistically significant (-0.26% [95% CI -0.74;0.22]; P = .29). The difference in endpoint HbA1c between CGM and SMBG was marginally significant (-0.24 [95% CI -0.49;0.00]; P = .05), and CGM was possibly associated with a lower hypoglycaemic risk. Only one trial explored the effect of FGM, as compared with SMBG, on HbA1c in type 2 diabetes, finding no difference across groups (at study end: 8.4% ± 0.8% vs 8.3% ± 1.1% with FGM and SMBG, respectively). Conversely, FGM was associated with an improvement in quality of life and with a lower incidence of hypoglycaemic events. The small number of retrieved trials indicates that the results should be interpreted with caution.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis showed that CSII, CGM and FGM provide only small benefits compared with MDI (on either HbA1c, hypoglycaemic risk or quality of life) in insulin-treated people with type 2 diabetes.

Effect of prandial treatment timing adjustment, based on continuous glucose monitoring, in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled with once-daily basal insulin: A randomized, phase IV study

AIMS

To evaluate the glycaemic control achieved by prandial once-daily insulin glulisine injection timing adjustment, based on a continuous glucose monitoring sensor, in comparison to once-daily insulin glulisine injection before breakfast in patients with type 2 diabetes who are uncontrolled with once-daily basal insulin glargine.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a 24-week open-label, randomized, controlled, multicentre trial. At the end of an 8-week period of basal insulin optimization, patients with HbA1c ≥ 7.5% and FPG < 130 mg/dL were randomized (1:1) to either arm A (no sensor) or arm B (sensor) to receive 16-week intensified prandial glulisine treatment. Patients in arm A received pre-breakfast glulisine, and patients in arm B received glulisine before the meal with the highest glucose elevation based on sensor data. The primary outcome was mean HbA1c at week 24 and secondary outcomes included rates of hypoglycaemic events and insulin dosage.

RESULTS

A total of 121 patients were randomized to arm A (n = 61) or arm B (n = 60). There was no difference in mean HbA1c at week 24 between arms A and B (8.5% ± 1.2% vs 8.4% ± 1.0%; P = .66). The prandial insulin glulisine dosage for arm A and arm B was 9.3 and 10.1 units, respectively (P = .39). The frequency of hypoglycaemic events did not differ between study arms (36.1% vs 51.7%; P = .08).

CONCLUSION

Using a CGM sensor to identify the meal with the highest glucose excursion and adjusting the timing of prandial insulin treatment did not show any advantage in terms of glycaemic control or safety in our patients.