Individualization of recommendations from the international consensus on continuous glucose monitoring-derived metrics in Japanese children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes

Comparison between a tubeless, on-body automated insulin delivery system and a tubeless, on-body sensor-augmented pump in type 1 diabetes: a multicentre randomised controlled trial

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

This study compares the efficacy and safety of a tubeless, on-body automated insulin delivery (AID) system with that of a tubeless, on-body sensor-augmented pump (SAP).

METHODS

This multicentre, parallel-group, RCT was conducted at 13 tertiary medical centres in South Korea. Adults aged 19-69 years with type 1 diabetes who had HbA1c levels of <85.8 mmol/mol (<10.0%) were eligible. The participants were assigned at a 1:1 ratio to receive a tubeless, on-body AID system (intervention group) or a tubeless, on-body SAP (control group) for 12 weeks. Stratified block randomisation was conducted by an independent statistician. Blinding was not possible due to the nature of the intervention. The primary outcome was the percentage of time in range (TIR), blood glucose between 3.9 and 10.0 mmol/l, as measured by continuous glucose monitoring. ANCOVAs were conducted with baseline values and study centres as covariates.

RESULTS

A total of 104 participants underwent randomisation, with 53 in the intervention group and 51 in the control group. The mean (±SD) age of the participants was 40±11 years. The mean (±SD) TIR increased from 62.1±17.1% at baseline to 71.5±10.7% over the 12 week trial period in the intervention group and from 64.7±17.0% to 66.9±15.0% in the control group (difference between the adjusted means: 6.5% [95% CI 3.6%, 9.4%], p<0.001). Time below range, time above range, CV and mean glucose levels were also significantly better in the intervention group compared with the control group. HbA1c decreased from 50.9±9.9 mmol/mol (6.8±0.9%) at baseline to 45.9±7.4 mmol/mol (6.4±0.7%) after 12 weeks in the intervention group and from 48.7±9.1 mmol/mol (6.6±0.8%) to 45.7±7.5 mmol/mol (6.3±0.7%) in the control group (difference between the adjusted means: -0.7 mmol/mol [95% CI -2.0, 0.8 mmol/mol] (-0.1% [95% CI -0.2%, 0.1%]), p=0.366). No diabetic ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycaemia events occurred in either group.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

The use of a tubeless, on-body AID system was safe and associated with superior glycaemic profiles, including TIR, time below range, time above range and CV, than the use of a tubeless, on-body SAP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS) KCT0008398 FUNDING: The study was funded by a grant from the Korea Medical Device Development Fund supported by the Ministry of Science and ICT; the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy; the Ministry of Health and Welfare; and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (grant number: RS-2020-KD000056).

Correlation between time on target and glycated hemoglobin in people with diabetes mellitus: systematic review

to analyze the correlation between time on target and glycated hemoglobin in people living with diabetes mellitus and carrying out continuous blood glucose monitoring or self-monitoring of capillary blood glucose.

systematic review of etiology and risk based on JBI guidelines and reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta- Analyses, covering six databases and grey literature. The sample included 16 studies and methodological quality was assessed using JBI tools. Protocol registered in the Open Science Framework, available at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/NKMZB.

time on target (70-180 mg/dl) showed a negative correlation with glycated hemoglobin, while time above target (>180 mg/dl) showed a positive correlation. Correlation coefficients ranged between -0.310 and -0.869 for time on target, and between 0.66 and 0.934 for time above target. A study was carried out on a population that performed self-monitoring.

there is a statistically significant correlation between time on target and time above target with glycated hemoglobin. The higher the proportion in the adequate glycemic range, the closer to or less than 7% the glycated hemoglobin will be. More studies are needed to evaluate this metric with data from self-monitoring of blood glucose.

Significance of the CGM metric of time in range in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been widely used in children and adolescents as well as adults with type 1 diabetes. CGM metrics include three key measurements of target glucose: time in range (TIR: 70-180 mg/dL), time below range (TBR: <70 mg/dL), and time above range (TAR: >180 mg/dL). The primary goal of optimal glycemic control is to increase TIR to more than 70%, while simultaneously reducing TBR to less than 4%, while minimizing severe hypoglycemia to less than 1%, as proposed by the Advanced Technologies and Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) panel. However, several studies have indicated that the TIR goal is quite difficult to achieve in pediatric patients who have remarkable interindividual and day-to-day glycemic variation due to their irregular lifestyles. Previous studies have demonstrated that patients without an automated insulin delivery system are unlikely to attain the recommended glycemic goals. On the other hand, reduction of hypoglycemia, particularly minimizing severe hypoglycemia, is a critical issue in the effective management of children with type 1 diabetes. Frequent episodes of severe hypoglycemia and hypoglycemia can cause lasting neurological damage. Accordingly, we propose reducing the TBR to less than 5%, rather than just targeting the TIR to more than 70%. In CGM metrics this should be the cardinal glycemic goal for pediatric patients who are either being treated with multiple daily injections of insulin or a conventional insulin pump, but who are not using an automated insulin delivery system.

Comparison of the clinical effects of intermittently scanned and real-time continuous glucose monitoring in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: A retrospective cohort study

AIMS

/Introduction The aim of the study was to compare two continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) and real-time CGM (rtCGM), to determine which system achieved better glycemic control in pediatric patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes and compared the time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL), time below range (TBR) (< 70 mg/dL), and time above range (TAR) (> 180 mg/dL), and estimated HbA1c (eA1c) levels between patients on isCGM and rtCGM.

RESULTS

Of the 112 participants, 76 (67.9%) used isCGM and 36 (32.1%) used rtCGM for glycemic management. Patients on rtCGM had significantly greater TIR (57.7% ± 12.3% vs. 52.3% ± 12.3%, P = 0.0368), and had significantly lower TBR (4.3% ± 2.7% vs. 10.2% ± 5.4%, P < 0.001) than those on isCGM but there was no significant difference in the TAR (37.4% ± 12.9% vs. 38.0% ± 12.5%, P = 0.881) or the eA1c levels (7.4% ± 0.9% vs. 7.5% ± 0.8%, P = 0.734) between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes on rtCGM also showed more beneficial effects for increase of TIR with notably reduction of TBR than those on isCGM. Real-time CGM may provide better glycemic control than isCGM in children with type 1 diabetes.

Frequent scanning using flash glucose monitoring contributes to better glycemic control in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

We examined the impact of scanning frequency with flash glucose monitoring on glycemic control in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 85 patients, aged 14.0 ± 0.5 years, with type 1 diabetes. The median time in the target glucose range (TIR) and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) values were 50.0 ± 1.4% and 7.5 ± 0.1%, respectively.

RESULTS

The median scanning frequency using flash glucose monitoring was 12.0 ± 0.4 times/day. Scanning frequency showed a significant positive correlation with TIR and an inverse correlation with HbA1c. Scanning frequency was identified to be the determinant of TIR and HbA1c by using multivariate analysis. The participants whose scanning frequency was <12 times/day were categorized as the low-frequency group (n = 40), and those who carried out the scanning >12 times/day were categorized as the high-frequency group (n = 45). Patients in the high-frequency group were more likely to be treated with insulin pumps compared with those in the low-frequency group; however, this difference was not significant (21.3 vs 5.3%, P = 0.073). The high-frequency group showed significantly greater TIR than the low-frequency group (57 ± 1.6 vs 42 ± 1.7%, P = 0.002). Furthermore, the high-frequency group showed significantly lower HbA1c levels than the low-frequency group (6.8 ± 0.1 vs 8.0 ± 0.1%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings showed that patients with a higher scanning frequency had better glycemic control, with greater TIRs and lower HbA1c levels, compared with those with a lower scanning frequency. Scanning frequency of >12 times/day might contribute to better glycemic outcomes in real-world practice in children with type 1 diabetes.

The Optimal "Time in Range" and "Time below Range" are Difficult to Coordinate in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes

Achieving the optimal glucose level time in range (TIR), as recently proposed by the "International Consensus on Time in Range," is challenging. We retrospectively analyzed data from 192 patients, including 58 with type 1 diabetes, using the FreeStyle Libre Pro system. This device was used by physicians for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and for making therapeutic decisions based on unbiased data, as the patients were blinded to their blood glucose levels during monitoring. The desired 70% TIR among patients with type 2 diabetes corresponded to an HbA1c of 7.7%. Importantly, however, a 70% TIR for patients with type 1 diabetes corresponded to an HbA1c of 6.9%, which diverged markedly from the HbA1c of 7.9% that corresponded to the desired 4% time below range (TBR). Moreover, these dissociations were observed more in patients with type 1 diabetes with a higher % coefficient of variation (> 36%). Hence, while the TIR is strongly correlated with HbA1c, it is difficult to coordinate with the TBR in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes. As these metrics (which are critical indicators in clinical practice) are rapidly gaining popularity globally, including in Japan, our data strongly support the cautious use of new CGM metrics such as TIR and TBR/time above range, and emphasize the importance of individualized treatment in achieving the optimal TIR and TBR, especially in patients with type 1 diabetes.

Association of time in range with hemoglobin A1c, glycated albumin and 1,5-anhydro-d-glucitol

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), glycated albumin (GA) and 1,5-anhydro-d-glucitol (1,5-AG) are used as indicators of glycemic control, whereas continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is used to assess daily glucose profiles. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationships between CGM metrics, such as time in range (TIR), and glycemic control indicators.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We carried out retrospective CGM and blood tests on 189 outpatients with impaired glucose tolerance (n = 22), type 1 diabetes mellitus (n = 67) or type 2 diabetes mellitus (n = 100).

RESULTS

In type 1 diabetes mellitus and type 2 diabetes mellitus patients, HbA1c and GA were negatively correlated with TIR, whereas 1,5-AG was positively correlated with TIR. In type 1 diabetes mellitus patients, a TIR of 70% corresponded to HbA1c, GA and 1,5-AG of 6.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.5-7.2%), 20.3% (95% CI 19.0-21.7%) and 6.0 µg/mL (95% CI 5.1-6.9 µg/mL), respectively. In type 2 diabetes mellitus patients, a TIR of 70% corresponded to HbA1c, GA and 1,5-AG of 7.1% (95% CI 7.0-7.3%), 19.3% (95% CI 18.7-19.9%) and 10.0 µg/mL (95% CI 9.0-11.0 µg/mL), respectively. TIR values corresponding to HbA1c levels of 7.0% were 56.1% (95% CI 52.3-59.8%) and 74.2% (95% CI 71.3-77.2%) in type 1 diabetes mellitus and type 2 diabetes mellitus patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study showed that the estimated HbA1c corresponding to a TIR of 70% was approximately 7.0% for both type 1 diabetes mellitus and type 2 diabetes mellitus patients, and that the estimated 1,5-AG calculated from the TIR of 70% might be different between type 1 diabetes mellitus and type 2 diabetes mellitus patients.

Severe Hypoglycemia: Is It Still a Threat for Children and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes?

Severe hypoglycemia is defined as a condition with serious cognitive dysfunction, such as a convulsion and coma, requiring external help from other persons. This condition is still lethal and is reported to be the cause of death in 4-10% in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. The incidence of severe hypoglycemia in the pediatric population was previously reported as high as more than 50-100 patient-years; however, there was a decline in the frequency of severe hypoglycemia during the past decades, and relationship with glycemic control became weaker than previously reported. A lot of studies have shown the neurological sequelae with severe hypoglycemia as cognitive dysfunction and abnormalities in brain structure. This serious condition also provides negative psychosocial outcomes and undesirable compensatory behaviors. Various possible factors, such as younger age, recurrent hypoglycemia, nocturnal hypoglycemia, and impaired awareness of hypoglycemia, are possible risk factors for developing severe hypoglycemia. A low HbA_1c level is not a predictable value for severe hypoglycemia. Prevention of severe hypoglycemia remains one of the most critical issues in the management of pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes. Advanced technologies, such as continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), intermittently scanned CGM, and sensor-augmented pump therapy with low-glucose suspend system, potentially minimize the occurrence of severe hypoglycemia without worsening overall glycemic control. Hybrid closed-loop system must be the most promising tool for achieving optimal glycemic control with preventing the occurrence of severe hypoglycemia in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes.