Benefits of a Switch from Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring (isCGM) to Real-Time (rt) CGM in Diabetes Type 1 Suboptimal Controlled Patients in Real-Life: A One-Year Prospective Study §

Switching from Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring to Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring with a Predictive Urgent Low Soon Alert Reduces Exposure to Hypoglycemia

Differences in the effectiveness of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) are reported. The impact on percent time in range of switching from an isCGM with glucose threshold-based optional alerts only (FreeStyle Libre 2 [FSL2]) to an rtCGM (Dexcom G7) with an urgent low soon predictive alert was assessed, alongside other secondary outcomes including hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and other continuous glucose monitoring metrics. Adults with T1D using FSL2 were switched to Dexcom G7 for 12 weeks. HbA1c and continuous glucose data during FSL2 and Dexcom G7 use were compared. Data from 29 participants (aged 44.8 ± 16.5 years, 12 male and 17 female) were analyzed. After switching to rtCGM, participants spent less time in hypoglycemia below 3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) (3.0% [1.0%, 5.0%] vs. 2.0% [1.0%, 3.0%], P = 0.006) and had higher percentage achievement of time below 3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) of <4% (55.2% vs. 82.8%, P = 0.005). Coefficient of variation was lower (39.3 ± 6.6% vs. 37.2 ± 5.6%, P = 0.008). In conclusion, adults with T1D who switched from isCGM to rtCGM may benefit from reduced exposure to hypoglycemia and glycemic variability.

Associations of bolus insulin injection frequency and smart pen engagement with glycaemic control in people living with type 1 diabetes

AIM

To evaluate whether both bolus insulin injection frequency and smart pen engagement were associated with changes in glycaemic control, using real-world data from adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Adults using a smart pen (NovoPen 6) to administer bolus insulin (fast-acting insulin aspart or insulin aspart) alongside continuous glucose monitoring were eligible for inclusion. Smart pen engagement was characterized by number of days with pen data uploads over the previous 14 days. Glycaemic control was evaluated by analysing glucose metrics.

RESULTS

Overall, data from 1194 individuals were analysed. The number of daily bolus injections was significantly associated with time in range (TIR; 3.9-10.0 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]; P < 0.0001). Individuals administering, on average, three daily bolus insulin injections had an estimated 11% chance of achieving >70% TIR. The probability of achieving >70% TIR increased with the mean number of daily bolus injections. However, the percentage of TIR was lower on days when individuals administered higher-than-average numbers of injections. The observed mean number of daily bolus injections administered across the study population was lower than the optimal number required to reach glycaemic targets (4.8 injections vs. 6-8 injections). Smart pen engagement was significantly associated with improved TIR.

CONCLUSIONS

Glycaemic control was associated with daily bolus insulin injection frequency and smart pen engagement. A treatment regimen combining an optimal bolus injection strategy, and effective smart pen engagement, may improve glycaemic control among adults with T1D.

Progress and indication for use of continuous glucose monitoring in patients with diabetes in pregnancy: a review

Gestational diabetes mellitus is one of the most common endocrine diseases that occur during pregnancy. Disorders of blood glucose metabolism during pregnancy can increase the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as pregnancy-related hypertension, preeclampsia, eclampsia, miscarriage, macrosomia, and neonatal hypoglycemia. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) can safely and effectively monitor blood glucose changes in patients with gestational hyperglycemia, thereby reducing adverse pregnancy outcomes. Hence, this article aimed to provide a comprehensive review of the progress and indications for using CGM in pregnant patients with diabetes. CGM can reduce blood glucose fluctuations and the occurrence of serious hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia events and can provide time in range (TIR). TIR is an important indicator of blood glucose level. Patients with a higher TIR during pregnancy have better gestational outcomes.

Intermittent-scanned continuous glucose monitoring with low glucose alarms decreases hypoglycemia incidence in middle-aged adults with type 1 diabetes in real-life setting

OBJECTIVE

There is limited real-life data demonstrating that hypo-/hyperglycemic alarms added to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) improve metabolic control in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). We evaluated the usefulness of switching from a flash or intermittent-scanned continuous glucose monitoring (is-CGM) device without low or higher glucose alarms to a is-CGM device with alarms to prevent hypoglycemia in adults with T1D.

METHODS

Individuals with T1D and fearful of hypoglycemia, prone to hypoglycemia unawareness, and/or experiencing severe hypoglycemia while using is-CGM Free Style Libre 1 (FSL1) were switched to FSL2 with individually-programmable low glucose alarms. The primary endpoint was the changes in % time below range (TBR%) <70 mg/dl [3.9 mmol/l] and <54 mg/dl [3.0 mmol/l] after 12 weeks on FSL2 compared with FSL1. Secondary endpoints were changes in % time in range (TIR% 70-180 mg/dl [3.9-10.0 mmol/l]), % time above range (TAR%) >180 [10.0 mmol/l], mean interstitial glucose, glycemic management indicator (GMI), interstitial glucose coefficient of variation (CV%), hemoglobin A1c, and sensor's scans/day.

RESULTS

We included 108 individuals (57.4 % men), aged 58.2 ± 17.3 [95 % CI: 55.0 to 61.5] years, with mean diabetes duration 25 ± 14.6 [95 % CI: 22.1 to 27.7] years. Among individuals, 40 (37.0 %) had hypoglycemia awareness with Clarke's score ≥4 and 19 (17.5 %) had a history of severe hypoglycemia. The median low glucose alarm threshold was 70 [IQR: 65-70] mg/dl (3.9 [IQR: 3.6-3.9] mmol/L). By comparison of first 12 weeks on FSL2 vs. last 12 weeks on FSL1, TBR% <70 mg/dl decreased from 4.5 ± 4.4 to 2.3 ± 2.8 % (p < 0.001), TBR% <54 mg/dl decreased from 1.4 ± 2.2 to 0.3 ± 0.9 % (p < 0.001). TIR% was not significantly different (51.5 ± 14.9 vs. 52.9 ± 16 % (p = 0.13)), nor was TAR% (43.8 ± 16.2 vs. 44.7 ± 16.5 % (p = 0.5)). CV% decreased from 39.4 ± 6.9 to 37.9 ± 6.1 % (p < 0.001). Those at risk for hypoglycemia (TBR >4 % and >1 %, respectively, at baseline) showed a significant decrease in the incidence of hypoglycemia <70 and <54 mg/dl (p < 0.0001). Patients' satisfaction with hypoglycemia alarms was high, since all individuals opted to pursue using individual alarm beyond the study period.

CONCLUSION

Switching from FSL1 to FSL2 with low glucose alarms reduced the frequency of hypoglycemia in middle-age adults with T1D, particularly in those who were prone to hypoglycemia awareness or severe hypoglycemia.

Lower Glycated Hemoglobin with Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring Than with Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring After 1 Year: The CORRIDA LIFE Study

Background: The aim was to compare the efficacy of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) focusing on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as the primary endpoint. Methods: The CORRIDA LIFE was a 12-month, real-world, nonrandomized study that is part of the CORRIDA clinical trials program. The study compared rtCGM (Dexcom G5 or G6) and isCGM (FreeStyle Libre 14-Day; Abbott) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Only patients on multiple daily insulin injections or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion with no automatic functions were included in this study. Primary outcome was the difference in HbA1c between study groups at 12 months. Results: One hundred ninety-one adults with T1D (mean age 40 ± 13 years, HbA1c 8.1% ± 3.4% [65 ± 14 mmol/mol]) participated in this study; 81 patients initiated rtCGM and 110 initiated isCGM. After 12-months, HbA1c was significantly lower with rtCGM versus isCGM (7.1% ± 3.1% [54.1 ± 10.1 mmol/mol] vs. 7.7% ± 3.3% [61.2 ± 12.2 mmol/mol]), P = 0.0001. The percentage of time in hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL [<3.9 mmol/L]) was lower among rtCGM vs. isCGM participants [4.3% ± 2.8% vs. 6.4% ± 5.3%], P = 0.003). Patients with rtCGM spent less time in clinically significant hypoglycemia (<54 mg/dL [<3.0 mmol/L]) (0.9% ± 1.0% vs. 2.3% ± 2.5%, P < 0.0001) and more time in target range (70-180 mg/dL [3.9-10 mmol/L]) than isCGM users (67.5% ± 14.8% vs. 57.8% ± 17.0%), P = 0.0002. Conclusions: rtCGM was superior to isCGM in HbA1c, hypoglycemia, and other glycemic outcomes. Our findings provide guidance to clinicians when discussing monitoring options with their patients. The study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04759495).

Advanced hybrid closed loop therapy versus conventional treatment in adults with type 1 diabetes (ADAPT): a randomised controlled study

BACKGROUND

Adults with type 1 diabetes who are treated with multiple daily injections of insulin plus intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) can have suboptimal glucose control. We aimed to assess the efficacy of an advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) system compared with such therapy in this population.

METHODS

The Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop Study in Adult Population with Type 1 Diabetes (ADAPT) trial is a prospective, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial that involved 14 centres in three European countries (France, Germany, and the UK). We enrolled patients who were at least 18 years of age, had a type 1 diabetes duration of at least 2 years, HbA_1c of at least 8% (64 mmol/mol), and were using multiple daily injections of insulin plus isCGM (cohort A) or real time continuous glucose monitoring (cohort B) for at least 3 months. Here, only results for cohort A are reported. Participants were randomly allocated 1:1 to AHCL therapy or continuation of multiple daily injections of insulin plus continuous glucose monitoring for 6 months with an investigator-blinded block randomisation procedure. Participants and treating clinicians could not be masked to the arm assignment. The primary endpoint was the between-group difference in mean HbA_1c change from baseline to 6 months in the intention-to-treat population using AHCL therapy and those using multiple daily injections of insulin plus isCGM. The primary endpoint was analysed using a repeated measures random-effects model with the study arm and period as factors. Safety endpoints included the number of device deficiencies, severe hypoglycaemic events, diabetic ketoacidosis, and serious adverse events. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04235504.

FINDINGS

Between July 13, 2020, and March 12, 2021, 105 people were screened and 82 randomly assigned to treatment (41 in each arm). At 6 months, mean HbA_1c had decreased by 1·54% (SD 0·73), from 9·00% to 7·32% in the AHCL group and 0·20% (0·80) in the multiple daily injections of insulin plus isCGM from 9·07% to 8·91% (model-based difference -1·42%, 95% CI -1·74 to -1·10; p<0·0001). No diabetic ketoacidosis, severe hypoglycaemia, or serious adverse events related to study devices occurred in either group; two severe hypoglycaemic events occurred in the run-in phase. 15 device-related non-serious adverse events occurred in the AHCL group, compared with three in the multiple daily injections of insulin plus isCGM group. Two serious adverse events occurred (one in each group), these were breast cancer (in one patient in the AHCL group) and intravitreous haemorrhage (in one patient in the multiple daily injections of insulin plus isCGM group).

INTERPRETATION

In people with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injections of insulin plus isCGM and with HbA_1c of at least 8%, the use of AHCL confers benefits in terms of glycaemic control beyond those that can be achieved with multiple daily injections of insulin plus isCGM. These data support wider access to AHCL in people with type 1 diabetes not at target glucose levels.

FUNDING

Medtronic International Trading Sàrl.

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.