Unblinded CGM Should Replace Blinded CGM in the Clinical Management of Diabetes

Detection and Intervention: Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Early Stages of Type 2 Diabetes

The term "prediabetes" has been used to identify the state of abnormal glucose homeostasis (dysglycemia) that often leads to the development of clinical type 2 diabetes. However, this term does not describe the cellular changes that are already taking place in individuals with elevated glucose levels. This article describes our approach to detecting early dysglycemia using continuous glucose monitoring and explains how this approach can be integrated into clinical practice settings.

Comparisons of Psycho-Behavioral Factors, Body Composition, and Clinical Outcomes in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes by Perceived Hypoglycemia

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to examine the associations between perceived hypoglycemia and psycho-behavioral and clinical factors in persons with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

Adults with T2D were recruited from outpatient clinics in a university hospital in Korea. Sociodemographics, psycho-behavioral and clinical factors, and body composition were assessed. The participants were divided into 2 groups reporting perceived hypoglycemia or not in the previous month based on an item of the Control Problem Scale. Group differences were compared at α = .05 using SPSS (version 26.0).

RESULTS

Of 177 participants, approximately one-third (n = 67) perceived hypoglycemia. The hypoglycemia group reported poor health-related quality of life, frequent blood monitoring and foot care, and sleep difficulties. However, no differences between groups were identified for diet, exercise, or glycosylated hemoglobin. The hypoglycemia group had a lower body mass index and a trend toward a lower skeletal muscle mass and fat free mass.

CONCLUSIONS

Perceived hypoglycemia was associated with psycho-behavioral factors and body composition. Importantly, some persons on oral antidiabetic medications that do not cause hypoglycemia still perceived hypoglycemia. Further investigation is warranted to examine the efficacy of strategies to minimize hypoglycemia and inappropriate fear of hypoglycemia. In addition, clinicians should be aware of the potential risk of hypoglycemia in persons with lower muscle mass.

Telemetric Continuous Glucose Monitoring During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Isolated Hospitalized Patients in Denmark: A Randomized Controlled Exploratory Trial

Objective: To investigate whether telemetric continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in hospitalized and isolated patients with diabetes mellitus and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with better glycemic outcomes and fewer patient health care worker contacts compared to blood glucose monitoring by traditional point-of-care (POC) glucose testing and to investigate the user aspect of implementing a CGM-system in-hospital. Materials and Methods: A randomized controlled exploratory trial was performed on hospitalized and isolated patients with diabetes and COVID-19 from May 2020 until February 2021 at Nordsjællands Hospital, Denmark. Participants were randomized to nonblinded telemetric CGM (as the only glucose monitoring method) or traditional POC glucose testing + blinded CGM. The primary endpoint was time in range (TIR) based on CGM data in both groups. A questionnaire about the user aspect of the CGM system was answered by health care personnel (HCP). Results: We included 64 participants in the analysis, 31 in the CGM group and 33 in the POC glucose group. TIR median was 46% for the CGM group and 68% for the POC glucose group (P = 0.368). The mean glucose value for the CGM group was 11.1 and 10.8 mmol/L in the POC glucose group (P = 0.372). CGM was associated with fewer POC glucose measurements (P < 0.001). Out of 30 HCPs, 28 preferred telemetric CGM over POC glucose testing. Conclusion: Remote glucose monitoring by CGM did not improve glycemic outcomes compared to traditional POC glucose testing, but was associated with fewer patient-personnel contacts, saving time for HCPs performing diabetes-related tasks. Most HCPs preferred CGM. The study is registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT04430608).

Real-Time Flash Glucose Monitoring Had Better Effects on Daily Glycemic Control Compared With Retrospective Flash Glucose Monitoring in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes on Premix Insulin Therapy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

To compare the effects of real-time and retrospective flash glucose monitoring (FGM) on daily glycemic control and lifestyle in patients with type 2 diabetes on premix insulin therapy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 172 patients using premix insulin, with HbA1c ≥ 7.0% (56 mmol/mol), or the time below the target (TBR) ≥ 4%, or the coefficient of variation (CV) ≥36% during the screening period, were randomly assigned to retrospective FGM (n = 89) or real-time FGM group (n = 83). Another two retrospective or real-time 14-day FGMs were performed respectively, 1 month apart. Both groups received educations and medication adjustment after each FGM. Time in range (3.9~10.0 mmol/l, TIR) increased significantly after 3 months in the real-time FGM group (6.5%) compared with the retrospective FGM group (-1.1%) (p = 0.014). HbA1c decreased in both groups (both p < 0.01). Real-time FGMs increased daily exercise time compared with the retrospective group (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Real-time FGM with visible blood glucose improves daily glycemic control and diabetes self-care behaviors better than retrospective FGM in patients with type 2 diabetes on premix insulin therapy.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://clinicaltrials.gov/NCT04847219.

Effectiveness of real-time continuous glucose monitoring to improve glycaemic control and pregnancy outcome in patients with gestational diabetes mellitus: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) informs users about current interstitial glucose levels and allows early detection of glycaemic excursions and timely adaptation by behavioural change or pharmacological intervention. Randomised controlled studies adequately powered to evaluate the impact of long-term application of rt-CGM systems on the reduction of adverse obstetric outcomes in women with gestational diabetes (GDM) are missing. We aim to assess differences in the proportion of large for gestational age newborns in women using rt-CGM as compared with women with self-monitored blood glucose (primary outcome). Rates of neonatal hypoglycaemia, caesarean section and shoulder dystocia are secondary outcomes. A comparison of glucose metabolism and quality of life during and after pregnancy completes the scope of this study.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Open-label multicentre randomised controlled trial with two parallel groups including 372 female patients with a recent diagnosis of GDM (between 24+0 until 31+6 weeks of gestation): 186 with rt-CGM (Dexcom G6) and 186 with self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG). Women with GDM will be consecutively recruited and randomised to rt-CGM or control (SMBG) group after a run-in period of 6-8 days. The third visit will be scheduled 8-10 days later and then every 2 weeks. At every visit, glucose measurements will be evaluated and all patients will be treated according to the standard care. The control group will receive a blinded CGM for 10 days between the second and third visit and between week 36+0 and 38+6. Cord blood will be sampled immediately after delivery. 48 hours after delivery neonatal biometry and maternal glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) will be assessed, and between weeks 8 and 16 after delivery all patients receive a re-examination of glucose metabolism including blinded CGM for 8-10 days.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study received ethical approval from the main ethic committee in Vienna. Data will be presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03981328; Pre-results.

Sleep, self-management, neurocognitive function, and glycemia in emerging adults with Type 1 diabetes mellitus: A research protocol

Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) affects 1.6 million Americans, and only 14% of emerging adults ages 18-25 years achieve targets for glycemic control (A1C < 7.0%). Sleep deficiency, including habitual short sleep duration (<6.5 hr total sleep time and high within-person variability in total sleep time), is associated with poorer glycemic control. Emerging adults with T1D have a more pronounced sleep extension on weekends compared with matched controls, consistent with sleep deficiency; however, associations among sleep variability and glycemic control have not been explored in this population. Sleep deficiency may affect the complex higher-order neurocognitive functioning needed for successful diabetes self-management (DSM). We report the protocol for an ongoing study designed to characterize sleep and the associations among sleep deficiency, neurocognitive function, DSM, diabetes quality of life, and glycemia among a sample of 40 emerging adults with T1D. We monitor sleep via wrist-worn actigraphy and glucose via continuous glucose monitoring concurrently over 14 days. We are collecting data on self-report and objective sleep, a 10-min psychomotor vigilance test on a PVT-192 device, a 3-min Trail Making Test on paper, and questionnaires, including twice-daily Pittsburgh sleep diaries using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap)TM . Results from this study will be used to support the development and testing of the efficacy of a tailored sleep self-management intervention that may improve total sleep time, sleep variability, neurocognitive function, DSM, glycemic control, and glucose variability among emerging adults with T1D.

Integration of Diabetes Technology in Clinical Practice

This article attempts to aid clinicians in using diabetes devices in their clinical practice. It reviews device selection, initiation, and follow-up. It discusses work flow in an office and provides tips on billing. It stresses the need for patient choice, education, and on-going support through downloading and interpretation of data to optimize care.

Improving Type 2 Diabetes Management in General Practice Using a Second-Generation Basal Insulin Analogue Insulin Glargine 300 U/mL: A Practical Guide

Type 2 diabetes management can be improved by the use of second-generation basal insulin analogues as the first choice on commencement of insulin, in this instance focussing on insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300). The clinical application of the use of Gla-300 include advantages such as less intra- and interpatient variability in glucose control resulting in rather less hypoglycaemia, longer duration of action and greater flexibility in the timing of administration thus suiting a wide range of patient presentations.Funding: Sanofi Australia.

Personal Versus Professional Continuous Glucose Monitoring: When to Use Which on Whom

IN BRIEF With the introduction of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems to the marketplace, providers and patients now have several options to continuously monitor glucose levels. This article addresses appropriate patient selection criteria for using patient- or practice-based CGM systems and the barriers to achieving optimal benefits from this technology. The authors have developed a flowchart to guide clinicians and patients in decision-making regarding the most appropriate type of CGM to use in various circumstances.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring Integration in Clinical Practice: A Stepped Guide to Data Review and Interpretation

BACKGROUND

The advent of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technology has transformed the approach to diabetes care. Multiple CGM systems are commercially available and increased accuracy has allowed development of hybrid and automated insulin delivery systems. Evidence of CGM clinical benefits has also increased exponentially in the last decade.

METHODS

Literature search, review of professional guidelines, and consensus statements were used to guide the preparation of this article. The clinical benefits of both professional and personal CGM in clinical practice as well as barriers to wider adotpion were explored. A stepped approach to review and interpretation of CGM data is suggested for use in the clinician's office regardless of the software used.

RESULTS

Although increasing, the use of CGM in patients with diabetes is still not widespread; multiple barriers are still in place, despite the approval of CGM systems for patients above the age of 2 years old, the extension of coverage for Medicare beneficiaries and the integration of CGM with multiple insulin pump systems. Integration of CGM technology in clinical practice presents various challenges, from concerns relative to time constraints during office visits to lack of systematic approach to interpretation of the data.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding the usefulness of personal and professional CGM, appropriate patient selection as well as patient and provider training are crucial for the expansion of CGM therapy use in clinical practice. Utilizing the proposed stepped approach to CGM review and interpretation may allow wider adoption of CGM with more effective and efficient office visits.

Reduction in HbA1c using professional flash glucose monitoring in insulin-treated type 2 diabetes patients managed in primary and secondary care settings: A pilot, multicentre, randomised controlled trial

AIM

Analyse the effects of professional flash glucose monitoring system (FreeStyle Libre Pro™) on glycaemic control in insulin-treated type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Primary (n = 17) and secondary care centres (n = 5) randomised 148 type 2 diabetes patients into three groups: (A) self-monitoring of blood glucose (n = 52), (B) self-monitoring of blood glucose and two Libre Pro sensor wears (n = 46) or (C) self-monitoring of blood glucose and four sensor wears (n = 50). Primary endpoint was time in range (glucose 3.9-10 mmol/L) within group C comparing baseline with days 172-187. Predefined secondary endpoints included HbA1c, hypoglycaemia and quality of life measures analysed within and between groups (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02434315).

RESULTS

In group C, time in range in the first 14 days (baseline) and days 172-187 was similar at 15.0 ± 5.0 and 14.1 ± 4.7 h/day (mean ± SD), respectively, (p = 0.1589). In contrast, HbA1c reduced from baseline to study end within group C by 4.9 ± 8.8 mmol/mol (0.44% ± 0.81%; p = 0.0003). HbA1c was also lower in group C compared with A at study end by 5.4 ± 1.79 mmol/mol (0.48% ± 0.16%; p = 0.0041, adjusted mean ± SE), without increased time in hypoglycaemia (p = 0.1795). Treatment satisfaction scores improved in group C compared with A (p = 0.0225) and no device-related serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Libre Pro can improve HbA1c and treatment satisfaction without increasing hypoglycaemic exposure in insulin-treated type 2 diabetes individuals managed in primary/secondary care centres.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring: A Brief Review for Primary Care Practitioners

Glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is routinely used as a marker of average glycemic control, but it fails to provide data on hypoglycemia and glycemic variability, both of which are associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), particularly in insulin-treated patients, is a cornerstone in the management of patients with diabetes. SMBG helps with treatment decisions that aim to reduce high glucose levels while avoiding hypoglycemia and limiting glucose variability. However, repeated SMBG can be inconvenient to patients and difficult to maintain in the long term. By contrast, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides a convenient, comprehensive assessment of blood glucose levels, allowing the identification of high and low glucose levels, in addition to evaluating glycemic variability. CGM using newer detection and visualization systems can overcome many of the limitations of an HbA1c-based approach while addressing the inconvenience and fragmented glucose data associated with SMBG. When used together with HbA1c monitoring, CGM provides complementary information on glucose levels, thus facilitating the optimization of diabetes therapy while reducing the fear and risk of hypoglycemia. Here we review the capabilities and benefits of CGM, including cost-effectiveness data, and discuss the potential limitations of this glucose-monitoring strategy for the management of patients with diabetes. FUNDING: Sanofi US, Inc.

Diabetes Device Use and Glycemic Control among Youth with Type 1 Diabetes: A Single-Center, Cross-Sectional Study

AIM

The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to determine the rates of diabetes device use (insulin pump and continuous glucose monitor (CGM)) and association with glycemic control in youth with type 1 diabetes in a large, diverse pediatric center.

METHODS

Demographic and clinical data were obtained from 1992 patients who met the eligibility criteria (age < 26 years, diabetes duration ≥ 1 year, and ≥1 clinic visit in the preceding 12 months). Statistical analyses assessed the likelihood of device use based on demographic characteristics and the association between device use and glycemic control based on most recent hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c).

RESULTS

Mean age was 13.8 ± 4.2 years, 50.7% were female, diabetes duration was 6.2 ± 4 years, and mean HbA1c was 8.7 ± 1.8%. Overall, 38.2% of patients were on pump therapy and 18.5% were on CGM. Patients who were non-Hispanic (NH) white, privately insured, and with primary English-speaking parent(s) had higher rates of insulin pump use, as well as CGM use (P < 0.001 for both). Female patients had higher rates of pump use only (P < 0.01). Private health insurance, NH white race/ethnicity, and CGM use were each associated with lower HbA1c (P = 0.03, <0.001, and <0.008, resp.).

CONCLUSION

At a large, diverse, pediatric diabetes center, disparities in diabetes device use were present across sex, race/ethnicity, health insurance coverage, and primary language of parent(s). CGM use was associated with lower HbA1c. Quality improvement efforts are underway to ensure improved access, education, and clinical programs for advanced diabetes devices for T1D patients.

Insulin Pump and Continuous Glucose Monitor Initiation in Hospitalized Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

Insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) are commonly used by patients with diabetes mellitus in the outpatient setting. The efficacy and safety of initiating inpatient insulin pumps and CGM in the nonintensive care unit setting is unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a prospective pilot study, inpatients with type 2 diabetes were randomized to receive standard subcutaneous basal-bolus insulin and blinded CGM (group 1, n = 5), insulin pump and blinded CGM (group 2, n = 6), or insulin pump and nonblinded CGM (group 3, n = 5). Feasibility, glycemic control, and patient satisfaction were evaluated among groups.

RESULTS

Group 1 had lower mean capillary glucose levels, 144.5 ± 19.5 mg/dL, compared with groups 2 and 3, 191.5 ± 52.3 and 182.7 ± 59.9 mg/dL (P1 vs. 2+3 = 0.05). CGM detected 19 hypoglycemic episodes (glucose <70 mg/dL) among all treatment groups, compared with 12 episodes detected by capillary testing, although not statistically significant. No significant differences were found for the total daily dose of insulin or percentage of time spent below target glucose range (<90 mg/dL), in target glucose range (90-180 mg/dL), or above target glucose range (>180 mg/dL). On the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire-Change, group 3 reported increased hyperglycemia and decreased hypoglycemia frequency compared with the other two groups, although the differences did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin pump and CGM initiation are feasible during hospitalization, although they are labor intensive. Although insulin pump initiation may not lead to improved glycemic control, there is a trend toward CGM detecting a greater number of hypoglycemic episodes. Larger studies are needed to determine whether use of this technology can lower inpatient morbidity and mortality.

Continuous glucose monitoring: A review of the technology and clinical use

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is an increasingly adopted technology for insulin-requiring patients that provides insights into glycemic fluctuations. CGM can assist patients in managing their diabetes with lifestyle and medication adjustments. This article provides an overview of the technical and clinical features of CGM based on a review of articles in PubMed on CGM from 1999 through January 31, 2017. A detailed description is presented of three professional (retrospective), three personal (real-time) continuous glucose monitors, and three sensor integrated pumps (consisting of a sensor and pump that communicate with each other to determine an optimal insulin dose and adjust the delivery of insulin) that are currently available in United States. We have reviewed outpatient CGM outcomes, focusing on hemoglobin A1c (A1C), hypoglycemia, and quality of life. Issues affecting accuracy, detection of glycemic variability, strategies for optimal use, as well as cybersecurity and future directions for sensor design and use are discussed. In conclusion, CGM is an important tool for monitoring diabetes that has been shown to improve outcomes in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Given currently available data and technological developments, we believe that with appropriate patient education, CGM can also be considered for other patient populations.

How Can We Realize the Clinical Benefits of Continuous Glucose Monitoring?

Controlling glycemia in diabetes remains key to prevent complications in this condition. However, glucose levels can undergo large fluctuations secondary to daily activities, consequently creating management difficulties. The current review summarizes the basics of glucose management in diabetes by addressing the main glycemic parameters. The advantages and limitation of HbA1c, the gold standard measure of glucose control, are discussed together with the clinical importance of hypoglycemia and glycemic variability. The review subsequently moves focus to glucose monitoring techniques in diabetes, assessing advantages and limitations. Monitoring glucose levels is crucial for effective and safe adjustment of hypoglycemic therapy, particularly in insulin users. Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), based on capillary glucose testing, remains one of the most widely used methods to monitor glucose levels, given the relative accuracy, familiarity, and manageable costs. However, patient inconvenience and the sporadic nature of SMBG limit clinical effectiveness of this approach. In contrast, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides a more comprehensive picture of glucose levels, but these systems are expensive and require constant calibration which, together with concerns over accuracy of earlier devices, restrict CGM use to special groups of patients. The newer flash continuous glucose monitoring (FCGM) system, which is more affordable than conventional CGM devices and does not require calibration, offers an alternative glucose monitoring strategy that comprehensively analyzes glucose profile while sparing patients the inconvenience of capillary glucose testing for therapy adjustment or CGM calibration. The fast development of new CGM devices will gradually displace SMBG as the main glucose testing method. Avoiding the inconvenience of SMBG and optimizing glycemia through alternative glucose testing strategies will help to reduce the risk of complications and improve quality of life in patients with diabetes.

Recommendations for Using Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring (rtCGM) Data for Insulin Adjustments in Type 1 Diabetes

The clinical benefits of real time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) use have been well demonstrated in both CSII- and MDI-treated individuals in large clinical trials. However, recommendations for patient use of rtCGM in everyday life situations are lacking. This article provides guidance to clinicians and patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in effective use of rtCGM data, including glucose rate of change (ROC) arrows, for insulin dosing adjustments and other treatment decisions. The recommendations presented here are based on our own clinical experiences as endocrinologists, our personal experiences living with T1D using rtCGM, and findings from a recent survey of T1D patients who have successfully used rtCGM in their self-management. It is important that both clinicians and people with diabetes understand the utility and limitations of rtCGM. Maintaining a collaborative clinician-user relationship remains an important factor in safe, successful rtCGM use.