The effect of do-it-yourself real-time continuous glucose monitoring on psychological and glycemic variables in children with type 1 diabetes: A randomized crossover trial

Comparing the glycaemic outcomes between real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) among adults and children with type 1 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) versus intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) on key glycaemic metrics (co-primary outcomes HbA1c and time-in-range [TIR] 70-180 mg/dL, 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) among people with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODS

Medline, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials were searched. Inclusion criteria were RCTs; T1D populations of any age and insulin regimen; comparing any type of rtCGM with isCGM (only the first generation had been compared to date); and reporting the glycaemic outcomes. Glycaemic outcomes were extracted post-intervention and expressed as mean differences and 95% CIs between the two comparators. Results were pooled using a random-effect meta-analysis. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB2 tool. The quality of evidence was assessed by the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Five RCTs met the inclusion criteria (4 parallel and 1 crossover design; 4 with CGM use <8 weeks), involving 446 participants (354 adults; 92 children and adolescents). Overall, meta-analysis showed rtCGM compared to isCGM improved absolute TIR by +7.0% (95% CI: 5.8%-8.3%, I2  = 0%, p < 0.01) accompanied by a favorable effect on time-below-range <70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) - 1.7% (95%CI: -3.0% to -0.4%; p = 0.03). No differences were seen regarding HbA1c.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis highlights that for people with T1D, rtCGM confers benefits over isCGM primarily related to increased TIR, with improvements in hypo- and hyperglycaemia.

Do-it-yourself continuous glucose monitoring in people aged 16 to 69 years with type 1 diabetes: A qualitative study

AIMS

In many countries, real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) is not funded, and cost presents a barrier to access. A do-it-yourself conversion of intermittently scanned CGM (DIY-CGM) is a cheaper alternative. This qualitative study aimed to explore user experiences with DIY-CGM in people aged 16 to 69 years with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODS

Convenience sampling was used to recruit participants for semi-structured virtual interviews exploring experiences of DIY-CGM use. Participants were recruited after completing the intervention arm of a crossover randomised controlled trial that evaluated DIY-CGM versus intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM). Participants were previously naive to DIY-CGM and rt-CGM but not isCGM. The DIY-CGM intervention consisted of a Bluetooth bridge connected to isCGM, adding rt-CGM functionality over 8 weeks. Interviews were transcribed, then thematic analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Interviews were with 12 people aged 16 to 65 years, with T1D: mean age ± SD 43 ± 14 years; baseline mean HbA1c ± SD 60 mmol/mol ± 9.9 (7.6 ± 0.9%) and time in range 59.8% ± 14.8%. Participants perceived that using DIY-CGM improved both glycaemic control and aspects of quality of life. Alarm and trend functionality allowed participants to perceive reduced glycaemic variability overnight and following meals. The addition of a smartwatch increased discrete access to glucose information. There was a high degree of trust in DIY-CGM. Challenges while using DIY-CGM included signal loss during vigorous exercise, alarm fatigue and short battery life.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that for users, DIY-CGM appears to be an acceptable alternative method of rt-CGM.

Evidence from clinical trials on high-risk medical devices in children: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Meeting increased regulatory requirements for clinical evaluation of medical devices marketed in Europe in accordance with the Medical Device Regulation (EU 2017/745) is challenging, particularly for high-risk devices used in children.

METHODS

Within the CORE-MD project, we performed a scoping review on evidence from clinical trials investigating high-risk paediatric medical devices used in paediatric cardiology, diabetology, orthopaedics and surgery, in patients aged 0-21 years. We searched Medline and Embase from 1st January 2017 to 9th November 2022.

RESULTS

From 1692 records screened, 99 trials were included. Most were multicentre studies performed in North America and Europe that mainly had evaluated medical devices from the specialty of diabetology. Most had enrolled adolescents and 39% of trials included both children and adults. Randomized controlled trials accounted for 38% of the sample. Other frequently used designs were before-after studies (21%) and crossover trials (20%). Included trials were mainly small, with a sample size <100 participants in 64% of the studies. Most frequently assessed outcomes were efficacy and effectiveness as well as safety.

CONCLUSION

Within the assessed sample, clinical trials on high-risk medical devices in children were of various designs, often lacked a concurrent control group, and recruited few infants and young children.

IMPACT

In the assessed sample, clinical trials on high-risk medical devices in children were mainly small, with variable study designs (often without concurrent control), and they mostly enrolled adolescents. We provide a systematic summary of methodologies applied in clinical trials of medical devices in the paediatric population, reflecting obstacles in this research area that make it challenging to conduct adequately powered randomized controlled trials. In view of changing European regulations and related concerns about shortages of high-risk medical devices for children, our findings may assist competent authorities in setting realistic requirements for the evidence level to support device conformity certification.

Utility and precision evidence of technology in the treatment of type 1 diabetes: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The greatest change in the treatment of people living with type 1 diabetes in the last decade has been the explosion of technology assisting in all aspects of diabetes therapy, from glucose monitoring to insulin delivery and decision making. As such, the aim of our systematic review was to assess the utility of these technologies as well as identify any precision medicine-directed findings to personalize care.

METHODS

Screening of 835 peer-reviewed articles was followed by systematic review of 70 of them (focusing on randomized trials and extension studies with ≥50 participants from the past 10 years).

RESULTS

We find that novel technologies, ranging from continuous glucose monitoring systems, insulin pumps and decision support tools to the most advanced hybrid closed loop systems, improve important measures like HbA1c, time in range, and glycemic variability, while reducing hypoglycemia risk. Several studies included person-reported outcomes, allowing assessment of the burden or benefit of the technology in the lives of those with type 1 diabetes, demonstrating positive results or, at a minimum, no increase in self-care burden compared with standard care. Important limitations of the trials to date are their small size, the scarcity of pre-planned or powered analyses in sub-populations such as children, racial/ethnic minorities, people with advanced complications, and variations in baseline glycemic levels. In addition, confounders including education with device initiation, concomitant behavioral modifications, and frequent contact with the healthcare team are rarely described in enough detail to assess their impact.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review highlights the potential of technology in the treatment of people living with type 1 diabetes and provides suggestions for optimization of outcomes and areas of further study for precision medicine-directed technology use in type 1 diabetes.

The Effect of Do-It-Yourself Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Glycemic Variables and Participant-Reported Outcomes in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Crossover Trial

AIM

Real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) has several advantages over intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) but generally comes at a higher cost. Do-it-yourself rtCGM (DIY-rtCGM) potentially has benefits similar to those of rtCGM. This study compared outcomes in adults with type 1 diabetes using DIY-rtCGM versus isCGM.

METHODS

In this crossover trial, adults with type 1 diabetes were randomized to use isCGM or DIY-rtCGM for eight weeks before crossover to use the other device for eight weeks, after a four-week washout period where participants reverted back to isCGM. The primary endpoint was time in range (TIR; 3.9-10 mmol/L). Secondary endpoints included other glycemic control measures, psychosocial outcomes, and sleep quality.

RESULTS

Sixty participants were recruited, and 52 (87%) completed follow-up. Glucose outcomes were similar in the DIY-rtCGM and isCGM groups, including TIR (53.1% vs 51.3%; mean difference -1.7% P = .593), glycosylated hemoglobin (57.0 ± 17.8 vs 61.4 ± 12.2 mmol/L; P = .593), and time in hypoglycemia <3.9 mmol/L (3.9 ± 3.8% vs 3.8 ± 4.0%; P = .947). Hypoglycemia Fear Survey total score (1.17 ± 0.52 vs 0.97 ± 0.54; P = .02) and fear of hypoglycemia score (1.18 ± 0.64 vs 0.97 ± 0.45; P = .02) were significantly higher during DIY-rtCGM versus isCGM. Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire status (DTSQS) score was also higher with DIY-rtCGM versus isCGM (28.7 ± 5.8 vs 26.0 ± 5.8; P = .04), whereas diabetes-related quality of life was slightly lower (DAWN2 Impact of Diabetes score: 3.11 ± 0.4 vs 3.32 ± 0.51; P = .045); sleep quality did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Although the use of DIY-rtCGM did not improve glycemic outcomes compared with isCGM, it positively impacted several patient-reported psychosocial variables. DIY-rtCGM potentially provides an alternative, cost-effective rtCGM option.