Continuous glucose monitoring-guided insulin adjustment in children and adolescents on near-physiological insulin regimens: a randomized controlled trial

Association of Fructosamine Levels With Glycemic Control in Children With Type 1 Diabetes as Determined by Continuous Glucose Monitoring: Results From the CGM TIME Trial

OBJECTIVE

Our aim in this study was to determine the correlation between serum fructosamine and average blood glucose, as measured by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in children with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

Ninety-seven blood samples were collected from 70 participants in the Timing of Initiation of continuous glucose Monitoring in Established pediatric diabetes (CGM TIME) Trial. Each eligible participant had 3 weeks of CGM data with at least 60% CGM adherence before blood collection. Ordinary least-squares linear regression incorporating restricted cubic splines was used to determine the association between fructosamine levels and mean blood glucose.

RESULTS

An association was found between fructosamine and mean blood glucose, with an F statistic of 9.543 (p<0.001). Data were used to create a formula and conversion chart for calculating mean blood glucose from fructosamine levels for clinical use.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a complex relationship between average blood glucose, as determined by CGM and fructosamine. Fructosamine levels may be clinically useful for assessing short-term glycemic control when CGM is not available.

Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring System in Children with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus in a Resource Limited Setting

Background

Regular self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) remains the mainstay method for diabetes monitoring. The major limitation of SMBG is poor compliance and it only provides a snapshot of glucose values at that point of time. Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) are non-invasive devices which measure subcutaneous interstitial glucose for every five minutes and provide glucose variability throughout the day.

Aim and Objective

To assess the effectiveness of intermittent continuous blood glucose monitoring in comparison with SMBG on the percentage reduction in HbA1c level in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM).

Methods

Children diagnosed with type 1 DM of age group 3-18 years were enlisted into the study. Participants were randomised to the study arm (CGMs+SMBG) or the control arm (SMBG alone). Subjects in the study group were given CGM along with regular SMBG for 14 days. The control group was asked to perform SMBG. HbA1c levels were measured in both groups after three months of intervention.

Results

There were 62 children in each group. After three months, in the intervention group HbA1c level dropped from 11.23% ± 1.53% (Mean ± SD) to 10.14% ± 1.99%, in control group HbA1c level dropped from 11.62% ± 1.62% to 11.32% ± 1.57%. The fall in HbA1c level in intervention group is significant (p value -0.01).

Conclusion

In a resource-limited setting, intermittent use of CGMs atleast once every two to three months will help in understanding the factors influencing glucose variation throughout the day and, with appropriate therapeutic modifications, will aid in achieving optimal glycaemic control.

Cutaneous Complications With Continuous or Flash Glucose Monitoring Use: Systematic Review of Trials and Observational Studies

BACKGROUND

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)/flash glucose monitoring (FGM) use in diabetes management is increasing. Cutaneous complications associated with these devices were reported. We conducted a systematic review to provide an overview of cutaneous complications with CGM/FGM use.

METHODS

We identified observational studies and intervention trials that report on cutaneous complications with CGM/FGM use up to January 14, 2019. Studies were identified through Medline, Embase, and PubMed, or with hand searching of the previous publications. Screening was duplicated and data extracted to consider four main themes: incidence rate and severity, participant perspectives of cutaneous complications, potential solutions, and future directions in diabetic technology relevant to reducing cutaneous complications.

RESULTS

A total of 54 eligible studies were identified. The overall event rate of cutaneous complications reported from 19 trials was one event per eight weeks of sensor wear-time of which 1.5% were considered severe. The most common cutaneous complications were wear-related erythema, itching, and induration. Although skin irritations were the most common cause of CGM/FGM discontinuation, most users experienced less pain or discomfort with CGM/FGM than capillary blood glucose testing. Future technological advances may reduce, but not eliminate cutaneous complications.

CONCLUSION

The incidence rate of reported cutaneous complications with CGM/FGM use from the available literature is low, with one event per eight weeks of sensor wear-time. Reported complication severity was also low, leading to low rates of CGM/FGM discontinuation. However, there appear to be discrepancies between reporting in trial and observational data. Greater constancy in reporting is necessary to understand the frequency of this issue.

Clinical efficacy of Professional Continuous Glucose Monitoring in improving glycemic control among children with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: An Open-label Randomized Control Trial

Frequent self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is the only accurate method available for insulin dose titration in patients with T1DM. Professional continuous glucose monitoring (p-CGM) is blinded recording of glucose trends over 5–7 days and helps physicians to guide insulin titration to patient. This study was planned to assess efficacy of insulin dose adjustments, based on p-CGM plus SMBG in improving glycemic control compared to SMBG alone. We did an open-label, parallel design, randomized control trial among children (2–10 years) having T1DM for at least 6 months. Subjects in the intervention group were placed on p-CGM (iPRO 2™ Professional CGM, Medtronic, USA) for 3–5 days along with regular SMBG. Data from p-CGM was analyzed by physician and used to guide insulin titration along with SMBG over following 3 months. Control group had only SMBG records for titrating insulin doses. Primary outcome was change in HbA1c 3 months after intervention. A total of 68 eligible children were randomized, 34 each to either arms. Thirty children in intervention group and 33 in control group completed the study and were analyzed. It was found that there was more decreased unit change in HbA1c, percentage of low sugar records and total insulin requirement per day, after 3 months follow-up, in intervention group. However, difference was not significant except for total insulin Units/kg/day (p = 0.014). In sub-group analysis of children with baseline HbA1c >7.5%, there was a significant mean fall of HbA1c by 1.27% (p = 0.045). There were no major adverse events associated with p-CGM. We conclude that addition of p-CGM along with SMBG may help in adjusting insulin dose more effectively especially in children with higher baseline HbA1c.

Continuous glucose monitoring: a review of the evidence, opportunities for future use and ongoing challenges

The advent of devices that can track interstitial glucose levels, which are closely related to blood glucose levels, on a near continuous basis, has facilitated better insights into patterns of glycaemia. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) therefore allows for more intensive monitoring of blood glucose levels and potentially improved glycaemic control. In the context of the announcement on 1 April 2017 that the Australian Government will fund CGM monitoring for people with type 1 diabetes under the age of 21 years, this paper provides a review of the evidence for CGM and some of the ongoing challenges. There is evidence that real-time CGM in type 1 diabetes improves HbA1c and hypoglycaemia, while in type 2 diabetes, the evidence is less robust. Initial barriers to widespread implementation of CGM included issues with accuracy and user friendliness; however, as the technology has evolved, these issues have largely improved. Ongoing barriers include cost, and weaker evidence for their benefit in certain populations such as those with type 2 diabetes and less glycaemic variability. CGM has the potential to reduce healthcare costs, although real-world studies, including cost-effectiveness analyses, are needed in this area.

Practical implementation, education and interpretation guidelines for continuous glucose monitoring: A French position statement

The use by diabetes patients of real-time continuous interstitial glucose monitoring (CGM) or the FreeStyle Libre^® (FSL) flash glucose monitoring (FGM) system is becoming widespread and has changed diabetic practice. The working group bringing together a number of French experts has proposed the present practical consensus. Training of professionals and patient education are crucial for the success of CGM. Also, institutional recommendations must pay particular attention to the indications for and reimbursement of CGM devices in populations at risk of hypoglycaemia. The rules of good practice for CGM are the precursors of those that need to be enacted, given the oncoming emergence of artificial pancreas devices. It is necessary to have software combining user-friendliness, multiplatform usage and average glucose profile (AGP) presentation, while integrating glucose and insulin data as well as events. Expression of CGM data must strive for standardization that facilitates patient phenotyping and their follow-up, while integrating indicators of variability. The introduction of CGM involves a transformation of treatment support, rendering it longer and more complex as it also includes specific educational and technical dimensions. This complexity must be taken into account in discussions of organization of diabetes care.

Evaluation of a novel continuous glucose monitoring guided system for adjustment of insulin dosing - PumpTune: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Retrospective continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) can guide insulin pump adjustments, however, interpretation of data and recommending new pump settings is complex and subjective. We aimed to compare the safety and glycaemic profiles of children after their diabetologist or a novel algorithm (PumpTune) adjusted their insulin pump settings.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In a randomized cross-over trial of 22 patients aged 6-14 yr with type 1 diabetes with mean Hba1c 7.4% (57 mmol/mol) using CSII, CGM was used over two periods each of 6.5 d to assess percentage time glucose remained within, above and below 3.9-10.0 mmol/L. Before the start of one period pump settings were adjusted by the patient's diabetologist, and before the other insulin pump settings were adjusted by PumpTune.

RESULTS

A total of 63.4% of the sensor glucose levels were within target range with PumpTune settings and 57.4% were within range with the clinician settings (p = 0.016). The time spent above target range with PumpTune was 26.9% and with clinician settings was 33.5% (p = 0.021). The time spent below target range with PumpTune was 9.7% and with clinician settings was 9.2% (p = 0.77). The mean number of times when a sensor glucose level <2.75 mmol/L was recorded with PumpTune settings was 2.9 compared with 3.7 with clinician settings (p = 0.39). There were no serious adverse outcomes and no difference in parent-assessed satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Automated insulin pump adjustment with PumpTune is feasible and warrants testing in a larger more varied population over a longer time. In this well-controlled group of children, PumpTune achieved a more favorable glucose profile.

Effectiveness of 3-day continuous glucose monitoring for improving glucose control in type 2 diabetic patients in clinical practice

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate whether adjusting diabetic treatment regimens according to the information obtained from a continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) might lead to improved glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical charts of 172 patients who used the CGMS for 1 year starting in December 2008 and the records of 1,500 patients who visited their regular outpatient clinics during December 2008. Of these patients, a total of 65 CGMS patients and 301 regular outpatients (control group) were enrolled in the study after propensity score matching. There were no differences in baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), age, and duration of diabetes between the CGMS and the control groups after propensity score matching. The changes in the HbA1c levels from baseline to 6 months were calculated.

RESULTS

The CGMS group showed a significant improvement in the HbA1c level compared to the control group at 3 months (7.9%±1.6% vs. 7.4%±1.2%, P=0.001) and at 6 months (7.4%±1.2% vs. 7.9%±1.6%, P=0.010). There were significant differences in the treatment modality changes between the CGMS group and the control group.

CONCLUSION

Using a 3-day CGMS was advantageous for improving glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes and may help these patients to optimize glycemic control in clinical practice.

Replacement of neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin with the long-acting insulin analogue, detemir, improves glycemic control without weight gain in basal-bolus insulin therapy in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes

Aims/Introduction:  The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of replacing neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin (NPH) with the long‐acting insulin analogue, detemir, in clinical practice.

Materials and Methods:  We carried out a retrospective study to compare the effects of replacing NPH with detemir in basal–bolus insulin therapy in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes. A total of 19 patients were enrolled in the study, and changes in hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c), insulin dose, bodyweight, fasting blood glucose levels (FBG), within‐patient variability in FBG and prevalence in hypoglycemia were monitored for 12 weeks before replacement and during three periods after replacement; 1–12 weeks (period 1), 13–24 weeks (period 2) and 25–36 weeks (period 3).

Results:  HbA_1c values improved significantly in periods 2 and 3. Despite the total insulin dose remaining unchanged throughout the study, the basal insulin dose increased from 0.24 to 0.27 IU/kg/day in period 2 and 0.28 IU/kg/day in period 3. Bodyweight decreased from 61.8 to 60.8 kg in period 1, whereas FBG improved throughout the study. Within‐patient variability in FBG was lower with detemir treatment than with NPH, despite the number of hypoglycemic episodes increasing significantly after replacement.

Conclusions:  These findings show that the weight loss observed in patients was independent of the reduction in calorie intake resulting from less frequent hypoglycemic attacks. In Japanese patients with diabetes who received NPH, replacing NPH with detemir led to improvements in glycemic control without any weight gain. (J Diabetes Invest, doi: 10.1111/j.2040‐1124.2010.00066.x, 2010)

Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems: A Review

There have been continuous advances in the field of glucose monitoring during the last four decades, which have led to the development of highly evolved blood glucose meters, non-invasive glucose monitoring (NGM) devices and continuous glucose monitoring systems (CGMS). Glucose monitoring is an integral part of diabetes management, and the maintenance of physiological blood glucose concentration is the only way for a diabetic to avoid life-threatening diabetic complications. CGMS have led to tremendous improvements in diabetic management, as shown by the significant lowering of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in adults with type I diabetes. Most of the CGMS have been minimally-invasive, although the more recent ones are based on NGM techniques. This manuscript reviews the advances in CGMS for diabetes management along with the future prospects and the challenges involved.

Continuous glucose monitoring: evidence and consensus statement for clinical use

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is an essential tool for modern diabetes therapy. Randomized controlled studies have provided evidence that hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) results can be improved in patients with type 1 diabetes with elevated baseline HbA1c when using CGM frequently enough and that the frequency and duration of hypoglycemic events can be reduced in patients with satisfactory baseline HbA1c. The CGM group within the Working Group Diabetes Technology (AGDT) of the German Diabetes Association (DDG) has defined evidence-based indications for the practical use of CGM in this consensus statement related to hypoglycemia (frequent, severe, or nocturnal) or hypoglycemia unawareness, insufficient metabolic control despite use of all possible therapeutic options and patient compliance, pregnancy associated with inadequate blood glucose results, and the need for more than 10 blood glucose measurements per day. Contraindications and defined preconditions for the successful use of CGM should be considered.

Continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes

Continuous glucose monitors (CGM), devices that can measure interstitial glucose in "real time," have become widely available particularly for use in patients with diabetes, and their accuracy and ease of use have greatly improved over the last decade. A number of large and well-controlled clinical trials have firmly established their usefulness in improving metabolic control (as measured by HbA1C) and decreasing time spent in hypoglycemia in adults; however, data have been less robust proving benefit in children and adolescents. Benefits are clearly linked to near-continuous wear. Insulin dosing algorithms based on CGM glucose trends have proven useful in dissecting the large volume of data generated daily by these devices, although these are imperfect tools, particularly in children. The technology is likely to be most useful when integrated with insulin pump delivery systems (sensor augmented). In this review, we concentrate on the analysis of published results of the largest trials in adults and children, including the very young, with diabetes.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on glucose control in diabetes

Diabetes mellitus is a chronic disease that necessitates continuing treatment and patient self-care education. Monitoring of blood glucose to near normal level without hypoglycemia becomes a challenge in the management of diabetes. Although self monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) can provide daily monitoring of blood glucose level and help to adjust therapy, it cannot detect hypoglycemic unawareness and nocturnal hypoglycemia which occurred mostly in T1DM pediatrics. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) offers continuous glucose data every 5 minutes to adjust insulin therapy especially for T1DM patients and to monitor lifestyle intervention especially for T2DM patients by care providers or even patients themselves. The main objective of this study was to assess the effects of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on glycemic control in Type 1 diabetic pediatrics and Type 2 diabetic adults by collecting randomized controlled trials from MEDLINE (pubmed), SCOPUS, CINAHL, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library up to May 2013 and historical search through the reference lists of relevant articles. There are two types of CGM device: real-time CGM and retrospective CGM and both types of the device were included in the analysis. In T1DM pediatrics, CGM use was no more effective than SMBG in reducing HbA1c [mean difference - 0.13% (95% CI -0.38% to 0.11%,]. This effect was independent of HbA1c level at baseline. Subgroup analysis indicated that retrospective CGM was not superior to SMBG [mean difference -0.05% (95% CI -0.46% to 0.35%)]. In contrast, real-time CGM revealed better effect in lowering HbA1c level compared with SMBG [mean difference -0.18% (95% CI -0.35% to -0.02%, p = 0.02)]. In T2DM adults, significant reduction in HbA1c level was detected with CGM compared with SMBG [mean difference - 0.31% (95% CI -0.6% to -0.02%, p = 0.04)]. This systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that real-time CGM can be more effective than SMBG in T1DM pediatrics, though retrospective CGM was not. CGM provided better glycemic control in T2DM adults compared with SMBG.

Continuous glucose monitoring in children and adolescents

Continuing glucose monitoring (CGM) is a relatively new and rapidly developing technology that shows promise for the future management of type 1 diabetes. When used with near-daily frequency, it has a significant effect on improvement of glucose metabolism as measured by HbA1C and reduction of hypoglycemia. It appears to be safe and actually reduces both DKA and severe hypoglycemia. Early studies indicate that it should be cost effective.

Comparative analysis of the efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring and self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 1 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) have been proven effective in improving hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and in reducing hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). It is not clear, however, if CGM provides further efficacy and safety benefits beyond SMBG in the management of T1DM.

METHODS

MEDLINE (1966-November 2009), COCHRANE REGISTRY (all years), and EMBASE (1980-November 2009), and article bibliographies were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of CGM in patients with T1DM, with clinical outcomes, including HbA1c and hypoglycemia and/or hyperglycemia.

RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs met eligibility criteria [n = 1188 patients, 97.4% with T1DM, age 29.0 ± 14.3 years, diabetes duration 11.7 ± 7.0 years, and baseline HbA1c 8.3 ± 0.8% (mean ± standard deviation)]. Compared with SMBG, the use of CGM was associated with a greater reduction in HbA1c [-0.3% (confidence interval: 0.4, -0.2), p < .0001]. The number of hypoglycemic events was not significantly different between the CGM and SMBG groups (0.52 ± 0.52 versus 0.52 ± 0.63 events/day, p = .5), but duration of hypoglycemia was shorter for the CGM group (75 ± 39 versus 89 ± 19 min/day), with an incremental reduction of hypoglycemia duration of -15.2 min/day, p < .0001. Continuous glucose monitoring also resulted in a shorter duration of hyperglycemia than SMBG (172 ± 125 versus 217 ± 152 min/day, p = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of CGM is associated with improvement in metabolic control in T1DM, with significant short- and long-term reductions in HbA1c and reduction in the duration of periods of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia versus SMBG.

Continuous glucose monitoring systems for type 1 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Self-monitoring of blood glucose is essential to optimise glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes mellitus. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems measure interstitial fluid glucose levels to provide semi-continuous information about glucose levels, which identifies fluctuations that would not have been identified with conventional self-monitoring. Two types of CGM systems can be defined: retrospective systems and real-time systems. Real-time systems continuously provide the actual glucose concentration on a display. Currently, the use of CGM is not common practice and its reimbursement status is a point of debate in many countries.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of CGM systems compared to conventional self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in patients with diabetes mellitus type 1.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL for the identification of studies. Last search date was June 8, 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing retrospective or real-time CGM with conventional self-monitoring of blood glucose levels or with another type of CGM system in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Primary outcomes were glycaemic control, e.g. level of glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes were adverse events and complications, CGM derived glycaemic control, death and costs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected the studies, assessed the risk of bias and performed data-extraction. Although there was clinical and methodological heterogeneity between studies an exploratory meta-analysis was performed on those outcomes the authors felt could be pooled without losing clinical merit.

MAIN RESULTS

The search identified 1366 references. Twenty-two RCTs meeting the inclusion criteria of this review were identified. The results of the meta-analyses (across all age groups) indicate benefit of CGM for patients starting on CGM sensor augmented insulin pump therapy compared to patients using multiple daily injections of insulin (MDI) and standard monitoring blood glucose (SMBG). After six months there was a significant larger decline in HbA1c level for real-time CGM users starting insulin pump therapy compared to patients using MDI and SMBG (mean difference (MD) in change in HbA1c level -0.7%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.8% to -0.5%, 2 RCTs, 562 patients, I(2)=84%). The risk of hypoglycaemia was increased for CGM users, but CIs were wide and included unity (4/43 versus 1/35; RR 3.26, 95% CI 0.38 to 27.82 and 21/247 versus 17/248; RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.29). One study reported the occurrence of ketoacidosis from baseline to six months; there was however only one event. Both RCTs were in patients with poorly controlled diabetes.For patients starting with CGM only, the average decline in HbA1c level six months after baseline was also statistically significantly larger for CGM users compared to SMBG users, but much smaller than for patients starting using an insulin pump and CGM at the same time (MD change in HbA1c level -0.2%, 95% CI -0.4% to -0.1%, 6 RCTs, 963 patients, I(2)=55%). On average, there was no significant difference in risk of severe hypoglycaemia or ketoacidosis between CGM and SMBG users. The confidence interval however, was wide and included a decreased as well as an increased risk for CGM users compared to the control group (severe hypoglycaemia: 36/411 versus 33/407; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.62, 4 RCTs, I(2)=0% and ketoacidosis: 8/411 versus 8/407; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.40, 4 RCTs, I(2)=0%).Health-related quality of life was reported in five of the 22 studies. In none of these studies a significant difference between CGM and SMBG was found. Diabetes complications, death and costs were not measured.There were no studies in pregnant women with diabetes type 1 and in patients with hypoglycaemia unawareness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is limited evidence for the effectiveness of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) use in children, adults and patients with poorly controlled diabetes. The largest improvements in glycaemic control were seen for sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy in patients with poorly controlled diabetes who had not used an insulin pump before. The risk of severe hypoglycaemia or ketoacidosis was not significantly increased for CGM users, but as these events occurred infrequent these results have to be interpreted cautiously.There are indications that higher compliance of wearing the CGM device improves glycosylated haemoglobin A1c level (HbA1c) to a larger extent. 

Short-term use of continuous glucose monitoring system adds to glycemic control in young type 1 diabetes mellitus patients in the long run: a clinical trial

BACKGROUND/AIM

Balancing strict glycemic control with setting realistic goals for each individual child and family can optimize growth, ensure normal pubertal development and emotional maturation, and control long term complications in children with type 1 diabetes (T1DM). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of short-term continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) application in improvement of glycemic control in pediatric type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) patients. METHODS. A total of 80 pediatric T1DM patients were randomly assigned into the experimental and the control group. The experimental group wore CGMS sensor for 72 hours at the beginning of the study. Self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) levels and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels were obtained for both groups at baseline, and at 3 and 6 months. RESULTS. There was a significant improvement in HbA1c (p < 0.001), in both the experimental and the control group, without a significant difference between the groups. Nevertheless, after 6 months the improvement of mean glycemia was noticed only in the experimental group. This finding was accompanied with a decrease in the number of hyperglycemic events and no increase in the number of hypoglycemic events in the experimental group.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that the CGMS can be considered as a valuable tool in treating pediatric T1DM patients, however further research is needed to more accurately estimate to what extent, if any, it outperforms intensive self-monitoring of blood glucose.

Efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring in improving glycemic control and reducing hypoglycemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in improving glycemic control and reducing hypoglycemia compared to self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG).

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and Scopus for randomized trials of adults and children with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM or T2DM). Pairs of reviewers independently selected studies, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data. Meta-analytic estimates of treatment effects were generated using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Nineteen trials were eligible and provided data for meta-analysis. Overall, CGM was associated with a significant reduction in mean hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c; weighted mean difference (WMD) of -0.27% (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.44 to -0.10)]. This was true for adults with T1DM as well as T2DM [WMD -0.50% (95% CI -0.69 to -0.30) and -0.70 (95% CI, -1.14 to -0.27), respectively]. No significant effect was noted in children and adolescents. There was no significant difference in HbA1c reduction between studies of real-time versus non-realtime devices (WMD -0.22%, 95% CI, -0.59 to 0.15 versus -0.30%, 95% CI, -0.49 to -0.10; p for interaction 0.71). The quality of evidence was moderate due to imprecision, suggesting increased risk for bias. Data for the incidence of severe or nocturnal hypoglycemia were sparse and imprecise. In studies that reported patient satisfaction, users felt confident about the device and gave positive reviews.

CONCLUSION

Continuous glucose monitoring seems to help improve glycemic control in adults with T1DM and T2DM. The effect on hypoglycemia incidence is imprecise and unclear. Larger trials with longer follow-up are needed to assess the efficacy of CGM in reducing patient-important complications without significantly increasing the burden of care for patients with diabetes.

Use of integrated real-time continuous glucose monitoring/insulin pump system in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a 3-year follow-up study

BACKGROUND

Insulin pumps and real-time continuous glucose monitoring devices have recently been combined into the sensor-augmented pump (SAP) system. The objective of this study was the evaluation of the clinical use of SAP in a large series of children with type 1 diabetes using insulin pump therapy.

METHODS

A questionnaire was administered in all pediatric diabetologic centers in Italy; data were analyzed only regarding patients 18 years old or younger and using SAP for 6 months or more.

RESULTS

Among all patients using an insulin pump, 129 (13.5 ± 3.8 years old, with a disease duration of 6.3 ± 3.4 years) have been using SAP for 1.4 ± 0.7 years. Four hundred ninety-three patients (12.9 ± 3.4 years old, with a disease duration of 6.2 ± 3.3 years) using conventional insulin pump therapy for 1.7 ± 0.5 years have been evaluated as the control group. After 0.5-3 years of using SAP or conventional insulin pump therapy, glycosylated hemoglobin significantly improved (8.0 ± 1.5% vs. 7.4 ± 0.8% [P = 0.002] and 8.0 ± 1.6% vs. 7.7 ± 1.1% [P = 0.006], respectively); the improvement was higher with SAP (P = 0.005). Insulin requirement showed a significant decrease only in SAP patients (0.88 ± 0.25 vs. 0.7 ± 0.23 U/kg/day, P = 0.003). Body mass index did not change during the observation period. No diabetic ketoacidosis episodes were observed during the follow-up, and severe hypoglycemia significantly decreased in SAP patients (P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The increased availability of continuous glucose sensors is likely to have a significant impact on pediatric diabetes therapy and education in the near future. In daily settings, patients using SAP can achieve a better control than patients using conventional insulin pump.

Is bedtime supper necessary for older children with diabetes using glargine insulin in multiple daily injection regimens?

AIMS

Current guidelines for dietary management of Type 1 diabetes in children recommend a carbohydrate supper before bed. However, with the introduction of insulin analogues such as glargine (with a basal insulin profile), supper may be unnecessary. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether supper is required to prevent nocturnal hypoglycaemia when using multiple daily injections, with glargine as the basal insulin and rapid-acting insulin pre-meals, in older children with Type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

Thirty-five children aged 10-18 years with Type 1 diabetes were recruited to a randomized cross-over trial (supper vs. no supper). Each phase consisted of three consecutive days of wearing a continuous glucose-monitoring system (CGMS) to record nocturnal blood glucose levels in the home setting. The supper phase included one 15-g carbohydrate dairy snack consumed before bed. The evening meals were standardized. Activity was restricted.

RESULTS

Valid CGMS data were obtained for 163 nights (85 supper, 78 no supper). Nocturnal hypoglycaemia rates were similar in the supper and no-supper groups (32.9% vs. 33.3% of nights; P = 0.96).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that supper is not necessary for all children to prevent nocturnal hypoglycaemia when using glargine insulin. The recommendation for inclusion of supper should be individually tailored and not mandatory.

An overview and commentary on retrospective, continuous glucose monitoring for the optimisation of care for people with diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Normoglycaemia in people with diabetes results in improved outcome. Continuous glucose monitoring provides detailed diagnostic information used to optimise therapy with the goal of achieving normoglycaemia. The objective of this study was to review the published literature evaluating the single device available for blinded, professional clinical use of continuous glucose monitoring; in particular all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and relevant observational studies.

METHODS

Published studies (to 31 March 2009) using the Medtronic MiniMed Continuous Glucose Monitoring System (CGMS System Gold, Medtronic MiniMed, Inc., Northridge, CA) were identified using appropriate search terms in a series of clinical databases including: Medline, Pubmed, Google Scholar and Scientific Web of Knowledge. Other measures were also taken such as reviewing the reference lists.

FINDINGS

In addition to an extensive range of non-randomised studies using the device, seven randomised controlled trials were identified, of which five were in children. Although HbA1c was explicitly stated as the primary endpoint in four studies, the studies were only adequately powered to detect large, between-group minimum differences (range 0.5 to 1.0% HbA1c). Only two studies included subjects with type 2 diabetes. Other endpoints included the frequency of hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia. Within-group HbA1c decreases were observed in all but one study. The crude, weighted mean improvement in HbA1c across the studies using the device was 0.6% (range 0% to 0.8%). When compared to a control measure the weighted, mean marginal benefit in HbA1c was 0.2%. No studies recorded how the information was utilised to modify treatment, such as changes in dose titration or treatment regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

Devices such as the professional CGMS provide detailed diagnostic information. However, any consequent changes in care and outcome can only result from the appropriate application of this information. Although there was a notable improvement in glucose control (HbA1c), existing studies were largely underpowered and did not capture the resulting treatment changes that could lead to improved outcome.

Glycaemic impact of patient-led use of sensor-guided pump therapy in type 1 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

The objective of this study was to assess the impact of patient-led sensor-guided pump management on glycaemic control, and compare the effect with that of standard insulin pump therapy.

METHODS

An open multicentre parallel randomised controlled trial was conducted at five tertiary diabetes centres. Participants aged 13.0-40.0 years with well-controlled type 1 diabetes were randomised 1:1 to either study group for 3 months. Randomisation was carried out using a central computer-generated schedule. Participants in the intervention group used sensor-guided pump management; no instructive guidelines in interpreting real-time data were provided ('patient-led' use). Participants in the control group continued their original insulin pump regimen. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and HbA(1c) level were used to assess outcomes. The primary outcome was the difference in the proportion of time in the target glycaemic range during the 3 month study period (derived from CGM, target range 4-10 mmol/l). Secondary outcomes were difference in HbA(1c), time in hypoglycaemic (< or =3.9 mmol/l) and hyperglycaemic (> or =10.1 mmol/l) ranges and glycaemic variability.

RESULTS

Sixty-two participants were recruited and randomised; 5/31 and 2/31 withdrew from intervention and control groups, respectively, leaving 26/31 and 29/31 for the intention-to-treat analyses. When adjusted for baseline values, the mean end-of-study HbA(1c) was 0.43% lower in the intervention group compared with the control group (95% CI 0.19 to 0.75%; p = 0.009). No difference was observed in CGM-derived time in target (measured difference 1.72; 95% CI -5.37 to 8.81), hypoglycaemic (0.54; 95% CI -3.48 to 4.55) or hyperglycaemic (-2.18; 95% CI -10.0 to 5.69) range or in glycaemic variability (-0.29; 95% CI -0.34 to 0.28). Within the intervention group, HbA(1c) was 0.51% lower in participants with sensor use > or =70% compared with participants with sensor use <70% (95% CI -0.98 to -0.04, p = 0.04). Five episodes of device malfunction occurred.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Individuals established on insulin pump therapy can employ sensor-guided pump management to improve glycaemic control. An apparent dose-dependent effect of sensor usage was noted; however, frequent use of this technology (> or =70%) was not universally acceptable.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ACTRN12606000049572

Multicentre, randomised, controlled study of the impact of continuous sub-cutaneous glucose monitoring (GlucoDay) on glycaemic control in type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients

AIM

This randomised study was designed to investigate the impact of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for 48h on glycaemic control with a 3-month follow-up in patients with type 1 (T1D) or type 2 (T2D) diabetes.

METHODS

A total of 48 patients with poor glycaemic control (HbA(1c): 8-10.5%) underwent CGM for 48h using the GlucoDay((R)) system (A. Menarini Diagnostics), after which they were randomly assigned to treatment adjustments based on either their CGM profile (CGM group) or their usual self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG group). HbA(1c) measurement and 48-h CGM were repeated 3 months later.

RESULTS

Altogether, 34 patients with either T1D (n=9) or T2D (n=25) completed the study; seven patients chose to leave the study, and seven patients in the CGM group were excluded because their baseline CGM graphs were not interpretable. HbA(1c) levels decreased significantly in the CGM group (n=14, -0.63+/-0.27%; P=0.023), but not in the controls (n=20, -0.28+/-0.21%; P=0.30). In T2D patients, the improvement associated with CGM vs SMBG was due to HbA(1c) decreases (mean: -0.63+/-0.34%; P=0.05 vs -0.31+/-0.29%; P=0.18, respectively). However, HbA(1c) did not change significantly with CGM in T1D patients. Comparisons of CGM data at baseline and after 3 months showed no significant changes in glucose control, glucose variability or hypoglycaemia. No major adverse events related to the GlucoDay system were reported.

CONCLUSION

This is the first randomised study showing that CGM improves glycaemic control in patients with T2D.

Randomized controlled trial to assess the impact of continuous glucose monitoring on HbA(1c) in insulin-treated diabetes (MITRE Study)

AIMS

To determine whether continuous glucose information provided through use of either the GlucoWatch G2 Biographer or the MiniMed continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) results in improved glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) for insulin-treated adults with diabetes mellitus, relative to an attention control and standard care group.

METHODS

Four hundred and four adults taking at least two daily insulin injections and with two consecutive HbA(1c) values > or = 7.5% were recruited to this randomized controlled trial (RCT). All were trained at baseline to use the same monitor for traditional capillary glucose testing throughout the 18-month study. The CGMS group were asked to wear the device three times during the first 3 months of the trial and on another three occasions thereafter. The GlucoWatch group wore the device a minimum of four times per month and a maximum of four times per week during the first 3 months and as desired for the remainder of the trial. Trained diabetes research nurses used downloaded data to guide therapy adjustments. Proportional reduction in HbA(1c) from baseline to 18 months was the primary outcome measure.

RESULTS

Neither an intention-to-treat nor per-protocol analysis showed improvement in HbA(1c) in the device groups compared with standard care. For the intention-to-treat analysis, when the standard care group was compared with each of the other groups, this equated to differences in mean relative HbA(1c) reduction (95% confidence interval) from baseline to 18 months of 3.5% (-1.3 to 8.3; GlucoWatch), 0.7% (-4.1 to 5.5; CGMS), and -0.1% (-4.6 to 4.3; attention control).

CONCLUSIONS

The additional information provided by these devices did not result in improvements in HbA(1c) in this population.

Patient-reported outcomes for an integrated real-time continuous glucose monitoring/insulin pump system

BACKGROUND

A 16-week, two-site study evaluated outcomes for a new device (the Paradigm 722 System, Medtronic MiniMed, Northridge, CA) that combines a "smart" continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) pump with real-time (RT) continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and CareLinktrade mark data management software (DMS).

METHODS

CSII-naive adults with type 1 diabetes in suboptimal control (mean glycosylated hemoglobin [A1C] = 8.6%) were randomized to the control arm, consisting of multiple daily injections (MDI) and self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), or the study arm (CSII with RT-CGM as an adjunct to SMBG). Participants (n = 28) completed the validated Insulin Delivery System Rating Questionnaire (IDSRQ) and the parallel Blood Glucose (BG) Monitoring System Rating Questionnaire (BGMSRQ) at study start and end. Participants in the study arm (n = 14) also completed newly developed User Acceptance Questionnaires (UAQs) for CSII, RT-CGM, and DMS at study end.

RESULTS

A1C reduction from study start to end was significant (P < 0.05) in both arms (-1.7% for study arm;-1.0% for control arm); there was no significant change in weight in either arm. The IDSRQ showed significantly (P < 0.05) greater benefit for the study arm in convenience, acceptability of BG monitoring requirements, BG control efficacy, diabetes worries, and interpersonal hassles, as well as higher overall satisfaction/preference. The BGMSRQ showed significantly (P < 0.05) greater benefit for the study arm in the BG monitoring system's ability to help manage glycemic control and less interest in changing to another BG monitoring system. The Study Arm UAQs showed positive ratings of system features.

CONCLUSIONS

Several patient-reported outcomes were significantly more positive in the study arm than the control arm; none was significantly more positive in the control arm. The features of the integrated RT-CGM/CSII system were frequently used and highly rated by participants, with high user satisfaction.

[Is silent hypoglycemia part of ideal glycemic control in DM1 patients? - hypoglycemic state by CGMS vs. glycemic average]

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the impact of silent hypoglycemic state in glycemic control in type 1 diabetic patients (DM1) by CGMS.

METHODS

87 DM1 patients (45%M/55%F) submitted to a 72 h CGMS profile were classified in 4 groups. It was analyzed: unrecognized hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL); duration time of silent hypoglycemia in which patients were classified into G1 (<5%), G2 (5-10%), G3 (10-20%) and G4 (>20%) of hypoglycemic state by CGMS; A1c and mean capillary glucose (MCG) in each group.

RESULTS

The silent hypoglycemia was detected in 64.5% of patients and nighttime episodes of hypoglycemia lasted longer (min) than daytime episodes in all groups (p<0.001). It was verified 41.4% of patients under than 5% of time in hypoglycemic state, 21.8% between 5-10%, 23% between 10-20% and 13.8% with more than 20% of CGMS in silent hypoglycemia. This data showed significant decreased in MCG when the duration time of silent hypoglycemia was longer (p=0.006).

CONCLUSION

The silent hypoglycemia is common in DM1 patients and most frequently in night time period. To take an average glycemia of 120-160 mg/dL in these patients, it was necessary a 10-20% of CGMS period in silent hypoglycemia in these patients.

A review of current evidence with continuous glucose monitoring in patients with diabetes

Devices that measure glucose on a near-continuous basis may provide a better insight into glycemic profiles, allowing patients with diabetes to make therapeutic adjustments to improve metabolic control, thereby reducing the risk of diabetic complications. Motivated and technologically adept patients with brittle diabetes, hypoglycemia unawareness, diabetic pregnancy, or who use pumps might benefit.Current evidence of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on health outcome in patients with diabetes is critically reviewed. No data are available on chronic complications or mortality. Therefore, surrogate endpoints need to be investigated, particularly HbA1c, number of hypo- and hyperglycemic episodes, time within normal, high, or low glucose concentrations, glycemic variability, and quality of life.Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using CGM in a retrospective way did not show metabolic improvement. In contrast, most RCTs applying real-time CGM showed a decrease in HbA1c, reduced glycemic variability, and a diminished number and length of hypo- and hyperglycemic events. Using accurate, real-time CGM devices improves quality of life by reducing the fear of unexpected hypoglycemic events. These beneficial effects were observed despite the fact that in most studies no clear treatment algorithm based on CGM results was provided to the patients. However, most trials were too short in duration, with a variable use of CGM, and were performed in small study samples.In conclusion, real-time CGM systems can improve metabolic control, reduce hypoglycemic episodes, and improve quality of life. Whether this holds true for longer time periods and in the majority of patients remains to be proven. In the long term, CGM might help to reduce chronic diabetes complications and perhaps also mortality, thereby reducing health care costs.

The effect of continuous subcutaneous glucose monitoring (CGMS) versus intermittent whole blood finger-stick glucose monitoring (SBGM) on hemoglobin A1c (HBA1c) levels in Type I diabetic patients: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGMS) is a relatively new technology that measures interstitial glucose every 5 min for 72 h. The resulting profile provides a more comprehensive measure of glycemic excursions than intermittent self-blood finger-stick glucose monitoring (SBGM) and thus could potentially improve diabetes control. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing CGMS and SBGM in Type 1 diabetic patients. Our aim was to determine whether CGMS leads to better hemoglobin A1c (HBA1c) levels, a marker of long-term vascular risk.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials comparing CGMS and SBGM in Type 1 diabetic patients were identified using both manual and electronic searches of the literature in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PUBMED and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials from 1996 to March 2007. Relevant studies were independently selected by two reviewers, who also extracted data on study design, quality and effect on HBA1c levels. Data from all trials were pooled using a random effects model.

RESULTS

Seven studies with a total of 335 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Five studies were confined to the pediatric population (age<18 years). Study duration varied from 12 to 24 weeks. Compared with SBGM, CGMS was associated with a non-significant reduction in HBA1c (0.22%; 95% CI: -0.439% to 0.004%, p=0.055).

CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support the notion that CGMS provides a superior benefit over SBGM in terms of HBA1c reduction. There was some indication of improved detection of asymptomatic nocturnal hypoglycemia in the CGMS group.

Flexible, intensive insulin therapy and dietary freedom in adolescents and young adults with Type 1 diabetes: a prospective implementation study

AIMS

To assess the outcome of a Diabetes Treatment and Teaching Programme (DTTP) on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), severe hypoglycaemia (SH) and severe ketoacidosis (SKA) in adolescents and young adults with Type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

Quality-assurance project with assessment of participants 1 year after participation in a DTTP (5-day inpatient course, groups < or = 10 patients, fixed curriculum of education/training, introduction of dietary freedom). Before-after analyses of participants aged 12-15, 15-18, 18-21 and 21-24 years. Main outcome measures were HbA1c, SH and SKA.

RESULTS

For the 1592 participants, aged 12 to 24 years, mean age at enrolment was 19 +/- 3 years, mean duration of diabetes was 7.3 +/- 5.4 (range 0.3-24) years, mean baseline HbA1c declined from 8.8 +/- 2.3% to 8.1 +/- 2.0%. The incidence of SH was 0.31 vs. 0.11 events/patient/year; the incidence of SKA 0.17 vs. 0.07 events/patient/year. In mixed effects models taking into account effects of centres, age and diabetes duration, the mean difference was -0.64%[P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.79 to -0.5] for HbA1c, -0.2 events/patient/year (P < 0.0001, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.12) for SH and -0.1 events/patient/year (P < 0.0001, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.06) for SKA.

CONCLUSIONS

Adolescents and young adults with Type 1 diabetes benefit from participation in a standard DTTP for flexible, intensive insulin therapy and dietary freedom.

[Continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) in type 1 diabetic patients during 4 (96h) or 5 (120h) days: there is advantage?]

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the accuracy, complications and impact in glycemic control in type 1 diabetic patients (DM1) submitted to 4 or 5 days of CGMS.

METHODS

We studied 36 DM1 patients (44.5%M/55.5%F), in three groups without no difference about age, DM duration and A1c levels (p < 0.05), submitted to 72h (G1), 96h (G2) and 120h (G3) CGMS profile. It were analyzed: capillary glycemia (CG) and mean CGMS sensors glycemic value; correlation coefficient, median absolute percent difference (MAD%), number of sensor reading, complications (trauma, local infection, disconnection, dropped), postprandial hyperglycemia, unrecognized hypoglycemia (< 70 mg/dl). A1c levels were measured at the start (1 month before) and after 3 and 12 months in each group.

RESULTS

No technical difference were observed into 3 groups: correlation coefficient > 0.79 and MAD < 28% in 95% (p < 0.01). The use of CGMS sensor more than 72h was not related to signal error, trauma, local infection or disconnection. The mean capillary glucose values showed no difference by glucose CGMS sensor (p = 0.01) in all groups. The nighttime episodes of hypoglycemia lasted longer (min) than daytime episodes in all groups (p = 0.05). The postprandial hyperglycemia was statistically identified in groups 1 and 3. This data showed significant decreased A1c level three months after the CGMS in G1 (72h) and G3 (120h) (p < 0.001 and p = 0.002, respectively), which sustained after 1 year (p < 0.001 e p = 0.047, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The CGMS showed to be a very safety method, with high accuracy/technical efficacy in patients undergoing 96 h and 120 h of CGMS. We do not observed advantages in the use of CGMS during 96 h or 120 h against 72 h in decrease A1c levels after 3 and 12 months. It is possible the use of CGMS > 72h, with no technical damage. However, we do not observed significant clinical benefits of this conduct in DM1 patients.

Continuous glucose monitoring and diabetes health outcomes: a critical appraisal

This paper presents a critical review of continuous glucose monitoring studies that address accuracy, utility in assessing glucose variability, detection of hypoglycemia for improved metabolic control or reduced glucose variability, impact on quality of life, reduced fear of hypoglycemia, and applicability in helping patients to overcome their reluctance to intensify insulin therapy. This analysis can be used to delineate the evidence that is still missing when considering continuous glucose monitoring as an established tool in clinical practice and for reimbursement of the system and services.

[How the continuous glucose monitoring system can contribute to HbA1c interpretation in type 1 diabetes mellitus?]

The aim of the present study is a literature revision of the contribution of continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) in the interpretation of HbA1c levels in type 1 diabetes (T1DM). We performed a revision of the efficacy, benefits, interpretation of methods and experience with this system. The CGMS could be useful in T1DM patients that present great glycemic variability or severe hypoglycemia (mainly nocturnal) and postprandial hyperglycemia. The identification of altered patterns or the glycemic variability allows therapeutic adjustment and improvement of the metabolic control. CGMS is a safe method with a rare occurrence of side effects and it is well-tolerated by patients. The extension of the procedure for more days, over the 72h period recommended by the standard test, allows us to get important data to changes and adjustments on the insulin management of the type 1 diabetes mellitus patients.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring System in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

We investigated the potential effects of the Continuous Glucose Monitoring System (CGMS), as compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose, on glycaemic control in children with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched throughout June 2007: MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. Additional references were obtained from reviewed articles. Only randomised controlled trials were included.

RESULTS

We included five trials involving 131 type 1 diabetic patients in the study. Combined data from all trials showed that the CGMS did not significantly reduce HbA1c levels compared with control groups. The pooled weighted mean difference was -0.02% (95% CI -0.29 to 0.25) with a fixed model and remained insignificant in the random effect model. Sensitivity analysis determined that the findings were stable. There was a trend towards a longer time under the CGMS curve for glucose <3.89 mmol/l in the CGMS group compared with the control group (mean difference 49.00 min, 95% CI -18.00 to 116.00). The CGMS significantly increased the number of insulin dose changes per patient per month for those managed with CGMS compared with the control groups (mean difference 6.3 changes, 95% CI 2.88-9.72).

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

The Continuous Glucose Monitoring System is not better than self-monitoring of blood glucose with regard to improvement of metabolic control among type 1 diabetic children. However, due to the small number of participants and methodological limitations of the studies included, findings of this meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution.

Update in type 1 diabetes

CONTEXT

Type 1 diabetes is a heterogeneous disorder characterized by severe beta-cell loss. The great majority of patients have type 1A or immune-mediated diabetes.

SYNTHESIS

There has been recent progress in defining the genetics, pathogenesis, and natural history of the disease. In addition, there is a major effort to develop immunotherapies to prevent the disorder and to cure the disease with islet transplantation, and there is potential for dramatic improvement in care with introduction of continuous glucose monitoring devices. The discovery of "metabolic memory" underscores the importance of excellent metabolic control. With comprehensive care, major microvascular complications (e.g. blindness and renal failure) are preventable for most patients.

CONCLUSION

The existence of multiple "competing" technologies to deal with this devastating disorder holds promise of improved outcomes.

Outpatient assessment of Karlsburg Diabetes Management System-based decision support

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess the benefit of the Karlsburg Diabetes Management System (KADIS) in conjunction with the continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) in an outpatient setting.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A multicentric trial was performed in insulin-treated outpatients (n = 49), aged 21-70 years, with a mean diabetes duration of 14.2 years. Subjects were recruited from five outpatient centers and randomized for CGMS- or CGMS/KADIS-based decision support and followed up for 3 months. After two CGMS monitorings, the outcome parameters A1C (%), mean sensor glucose of the CGMS profile (MSG) (mmol/l), and duration of hyperglycemia (h/day) were evaluated.

RESULTS

In contrast with the CGMS group (0.27 +/- 0.67%), mean change in A1C decreased in the CGMS/KADIS group during the follow-up (-0.34 +/- 0.49%; P < 0.01). MSG levels were not affected in the CGMS group (7.75 +/- 1.33 vs. 8.45 +/- 2.46 mmol/l) but declined in the CGMS/KADIS group (8.43 +/- 1.33 vs. 7.59 +/- 1.47 mmol/l; P < 0.05). Net KADIS effect (-0.60 [95% CI -0.96 to - 0.25%]; P < 0.01) was associated with reduced duration of hyperglycemia (4.6 vs. 1.0 h/day; P < 0.01) without increasing hypoglycemia. Multiple regression revealed that the A1C outcome was dependent on KADIS-based decision support. Age, sex, physician's specialty, diabetes type, and BMI had no measurable effect.

CONCLUSIONS

If physicians were supported by CGMS/KADIS in therapeutic decisions, they achieved better glycemic control for their patients compared with support by CGMS alone. KADIS is a suitable decision support tool for physicians in outpatient diabetes care and has the potential to improve evidence-based management of diabetes.

The role of continuous glucose monitoring in clinical decision-making in diabetes in pregnancy

BACKGROUND

The continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) is a novel tool to assess 24-h glucose fluctuations. In pregnancies complicated by diabetes, where excellent glucose control is desired to improve maternal and fetal outcomes, CGMS may have a role in fine-tuning management.

AIMS

To assess the usefulness of CGMS in pregnant women with diabetes for medical decision-making and to evaluate patient tolerability and perception of usefulness.

METHODS

Pregnant women with diabetes at the Werribee Mercy Hospital were offered CGMS in the setting of their standard diabetes care. Treating clinicians were asked if the CGMS altered management decisions from those based on conventional glucose monitoring. The accuracy of the CGMS was assessed by comparison with the patients' finger-prick glucose readings. Patients completed a feedback questionnaire after having the CGMS and viewing their results.

RESULTS

CGMS traces (n = 68) were obtained in 55 pregnant women - 37 with gestational diabetes, ten with type 2 and eight with type 1 diabetes. Forty-two of 68 (62%) traces were assessed as providing additional information which altered clinical management decisions. This included showing undetected postprandial hyperglycaemia and overnight hypoglycaemia. Subject feedback was generally positive, with 37 of 48 (77%) respondents reporting that the benefits of the CGMS outweighed the inconvenience.

CONCLUSION

CGMS is a well-tolerated clinically useful tool in the management of gestational diabetes and pre-existing diabetes in pregnancy.

Technology and intensive management in youth with type 1 diabetes: state of the art

Recent implementation of technologic advances in the management of pediatric type 1 diabetes creates an exciting time for the diabetes community. Safety and efficacy of new therapies are commonly demonstrated first in adult patients with pediatric studies following. This review covers recent advances in six main areas: blood glucose monitoring including continuous monitoring; point-of-care A1c testing; designer insulins; insulin delivery systems including insulin pumps; electronic communication; and telehealth.

Recent progress in analytical instrumentation for glycemic control in diabetic and critically ill patients

Implementing strict glycemic control can reduce the risk of serious complications in both diabetic and critically ill patients. For this reason, many different analytical, mainly electrochemical and optical sensor approaches for glucose measurements have been developed. Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) has been recognised as being an indispensable tool for intensive diabetes therapy. Recent progress in analytical instrumentation, allowing submicroliter samples of blood, alternative site testing, reduced test time, autocalibration, and improved precision, is comprehensively described in this review. Continuous blood glucose monitoring techniques and insulin infusion strategies, developmental steps towards the realization of the dream of an artificial pancreas under closed loop control, are presented. Progress in glucose sensing and glycemic control for both patient groups is discussed by assessing recent published literature (up to 2006). The state-of-the-art and trends in analytical techniques (either episodic, intermittent or continuous, minimal-invasive, or noninvasive) detailed in this review will provide researchers, health professionals and the diabetic community with a comprehensive overview of the potential of next-generation instrumentation suited to either short- and long-term implantation or ex vivo measurement in combination with appropriate body interfaces such as microdialysis catheters.