Clinical Implications of Real-time and Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring

To determine the frequency of hypoglycemia in patients with type I diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycemia by prospective assessment. A prospective study was undertaken for 12 months in 60 patients with type I diabetes: 29 had impaired awareness of hypoglycemia and 31 retained normal awareness of hypoglycemia. The two groups of patients were matched for age, age at onset of diabetes, duration of diabetes, and glycemic control. Episodes of severe hypoglycemia were recorded within 24 h of the event and verified where possible by witnesses. During the 12 months, 19 (66%) of the patients with impaired awareness had one or more episodes of severe hypoglycemia with an overall incidence of 2.8 episodes.patient-1.year-1. By comparison, 8 (26%) of the patients with normal awareness experienced severe hypoglycemia (P < 0.01) with an annual incidence of 0.5 episode.patient-1.year-1 (P < 0.001). Severe hypoglycemia occurred at different times of the day in the two groups: patients with impaired awareness experienced a greater proportion of episodes during the evening (P = 0.03), and patients with normal awareness experienced a greater proportion in the early morning (P = 0.05). An assessment of fear of hypoglycemia revealed that patients with impaired awareness of hypoglycemia worried more about hypoglycemia than did patients with normal awareness (P = 0.008), but did not modify their behavior accordingly. This prospective evaluation demonstrated that impaired awareness of hypoglycemia predisposes to a sixfold increase in the frequency of severe hypoglycemia, much of which occurred at home during waking hours.

Introduction Glycemic control in participants with insulin-treated diabetes remains challenging. We assessed safety and efficacy of new flash glucose-sensing technology to replace self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). Methods This open-label randomized controlled study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02082184) enrolled adults with type 2 diabetes on intensive insulin therapy from 26 European diabetes centers. Following 2 weeks of blinded sensor wear, 2:1 (intervention/control) randomization (centrally, using biased-coin minimization dependant on study center and insulin administration) was to control (SMBG) or intervention (glucose-sensing technology). Participants and investigators were not masked to group allocation. Primary outcome was difference in HbA1c at 6 months in the full analysis set. Prespecified secondary outcomes included time in hypoglycemia, effect of age, and patient satisfaction. Results Participants (n = 224) were randomized (149 intervention, 75 controls). At 6 months, there was no difference in the change in HbA1c between intervention and controls: −3.1 ± 0.75 mmol/mol, [−0.29 ± 0.07% (mean ± SE)] and −3.4 ± 1.04 mmol/mol (−0.31 ± 0.09%) respectively; p = 0.8222. A difference was detected in participants aged <65 years [−5.7 ± 0.96 mmol/mol (−0.53 ± 0.09%) and −2.2 ± 1.31 mmol/mol (−0.20 ± 0.12%), respectively; p = 0.0301]. Time in hypoglycemia <3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) reduced by 0.47 ± 0.13 h/day [mean ± SE (p = 0.0006)], and <3.1 mmol/L (55 mg/dL) reduced by 0.22 ± 0.07 h/day (p = 0.0014) for intervention participants compared with controls; reductions of 43% and 53%, respectively. SMBG frequency, similar at baseline, decreased in intervention participants from 3.8 ± 1.4 tests/day (mean ± SD) to 0.3 ± 0.7, remaining unchanged in controls. Treatment satisfaction was higher in intervention compared with controls (DTSQ 13.1 ± 0.50 (mean ± SE) and 9.0 ± 0.72, respectively; p < 0.0001). No serious adverse events or severe hypoglycemic events were reported related to sensor data use. Forty-two serious events [16 (10.7%) intervention participants, 12 (16.0%) controls] were not device-related. Six intervention participants reported nine adverse events for sensor-wear reactions (two severe, six moderate, one mild). Conclusion Flash glucose-sensing technology use in type 2 diabetes with intensive insulin therapy results in no difference in HbA1c change and reduced hypoglycemia, thus offering a safe, effective replacement for SMBG. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02082184. Funding Abbott Diabetes Care. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13300-016-0223-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), which studies have shown is beneficial for adults with type 1 diabetes, has not been well-evaluated in those with type 2 diabetes receiving insulin.