for the Wireless Innovation for Seniors With Diabetes Mellitus (WISDM) Study Group IMPORTANCE Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides real-time assessment of glucose levels and may be beneficial in reducing hypoglycemia in older adults with type 1 diabetes. OBJECTIVE To determine whether CGM is effective in reducing hypoglycemia compared with standard blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in older adults with type 1 diabetes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized clinical trial conducted at 22 endocrinology practices in the United States among 203 adults at least 60 years of age with type 1 diabetes. INTERVENTIONS Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to use CGM (n = 103) or standard BGM (n = 100). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was CGM-measured percentage of time that sensor glucose values were less than 70 mg/dL during 6 months of follow-up. There were 31 prespecified secondary outcomes, including additional CGM metrics for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and glucose control; hemoglobin A 1c (HbA 1c ); and cognition and patient-reported outcomes, with adjustment for multiple comparisons to control for false-discovery rate. RESULTSOf the 203 participants (median age, 68 [interquartile range {IQR}, 65-71] years; median type 1 diabetes duration, 36 [IQR, years; 52% female; 53% insulin pump use; mean HbA 1c , 7.5% [SD, 0.9%]), 83% used CGM at least 6 days per week during month 6. Median time with glucose levels less than 70 mg/dL was 5.1% (73 minutes per day) at baseline and 2.7% (39 minutes per day) during follow-up in the CGM group vs 4.7% (68 minutes per day) and 4.9% (70 minutes per day), respectively, in the standard BGM group (adjusted treatment difference, −1.9% (−27 minutes per day); 95% CI, −2.8% to −1.1% [−40 to −16 minutes per day]; P <.001). Of the 31 prespecified secondary end points, there were statistically significant differences for all 9 CGM metrics, 6 of 7 HbA 1c outcomes, and none of the 15 cognitive and patient-reported outcomes. Mean HbA 1c decreased in the CGM group compared with the standard BGM group (adjusted group difference, −0.3%; 95% CI, −0.4% to −0.1%; P <.001). The most commonly reported adverse events using CGM and standard BGM, respectively, were severe hypoglycemia (1 and 10), fractures (5 and 1), falls (4 and 3), and emergency department visits (6 and 8).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among adults aged 60 years or older with type 1 diabetes, continuous glucose monitoring compared with standard blood glucose monitoring resulted in a small but statistically significant improvement in hypoglycemia over 6 months. Further research is needed to understand the long-term clinical benefit.

Abstract Context Minority young adults (YA) currently represent the largest growing population with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and experience very poor outcomes. Modifiable drivers of disparities need to be identified, but are not well-studied. Objective To describe racial-ethnic disparities among YA with T1D and identify drivers of glycemic disparity other than socioeconomic status (SES). Design Cross-sectional multicenter collection of patient and chart-reported variables, including SES, social determinants of health, and diabetes-specific factors, with comparison between non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic YA and multilevel modeling to identify variables that account for glycemic disparity apart from SES. Setting Six diabetes centers across the United States. Participants A total of 300 YA with T1D (18-28 years: 33% non-Hispanic White, 32% non-Hispanic Black, and 34% Hispanic). Main Outcome Racial-ethnic disparity in HbA1c levels. Results Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic YA had lower SES, higher HbA1c levels, and much lower diabetes technology use than non-Hispanic White YA (P &lt; 0.001). Non-Hispanic Black YA differed from Hispanic, reporting higher diabetes distress and lower self-management (P &lt; 0.001). After accounting for SES, differences in HbA1c levels disappeared between non-Hispanic White and Hispanic YA, whereas they remained for non-Hispanic Black YA (+ 2.26% [24 mmol/mol], P &lt; 0.001). Diabetes technology use, diabetes distress, and disease self-management accounted for a significant portion of the remaining non-Hispanic Black–White glycemic disparity. Conclusion This study demonstrated large racial-ethnic inequity in YA with T1D, especially among non-Hispanic Black participants. Our findings reveal key opportunities for clinicians to potentially mitigate glycemic disparity in minority YA by promoting diabetes technology use, connecting with social programs, and tailoring support for disease self-management and diabetes distress to account for social contextual factors.

MDG may be more effective than insulin reduction for preventing exercise-induced hypoglycemia and may result in less postintervention hyperglycemia than ingestion of carbohydrate.

No abstract