IntroductionGlycemic 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).MethodsThis 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.ResultsParticipants (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).ConclusionFlash 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02082184.FundingAbbott Diabetes Care.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13300-016-0223-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

OBJECTIVETo compare the improvements in glycemic control associated with transitioning to insulin pump therapy in patients using continuous glucose monitoring versus standard blood glucose self-monitoring.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSThe RealTrend study was a 6-month, randomized, parallel-group, two-arm, open-label study of 132 adults and children with uncontrolled type 1 diabetes (A1C ≥8%) being treated with multiple daily injections. One group was fitted with the Medtronic MiniMed Paradigm REAL-Time system (PRT group), an insulin pump with integrated continuous subcutaneous glucose monitoring (CGM) capability, with instructions to wear CGM sensors at least 70% of the time. Conventional insulin pump therapy was initiated in the other group (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII] group). Outcome measures included A1C and glycemic variability.RESULTSA total of 115 patients completed the study. Between baseline and trial end, A1C improved significantly in both groups (PRT group −0.81 ± 1.09%, P < 0.001; CSII group −0.57 ± 0.94%, P < 0.001), with no significant difference between groups. When the 91 patients who were fully protocol-compliant (including CGM sensor wear ≥70% of the time) were considered, A1C improvement was significantly greater in the PRT group (P = 0.004) (PRT group −0.96 ± 0.93%, P < 0.001; CSII group −0.55 ± 0.93%, P < 0.001). Hyperglycemia parameters decreased in line with improvements in A1C with no impact on hypoglycemia.CONCLUSIONSCGM-enabled insulin pump therapy improves glycemia more than conventional pump therapy during the first 6 months of pump use in patients who wear CGM sensors at least 70% of the time.

IntroductionPublished evaluations of sensor glucose monitoring use in insulin treated type 2 diabetes are limited. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of flash glucose-sensing technology as a replacement for self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) over a 12-month period in participants with type 2 diabetes who were on intensive insulin therapy.MethodsAn open-label, randomized, controlled study in adults with type 2 diabetes on intensive insulin therapy from 26 European diabetes centers aimed at assessing flash glucose sensing technology was conducted. Participants (N = 224) were randomized (1:2 respectively) to a control group (n = 75) that used SMBG (FreeStyle Lite™) or to an intervention group (n = 149) which used sensor glucose data (FreeStyle Libre™ Flash Glucose Monitoring System) for self-management over 6 months. All intervention group participants who completed the 6-month treatment phase continued into an additional 6-month open-access phase.ResultsA total of 139 intervention participants completed the 6-month treatment phase and continued into the open-access phase. At 12 months (end of open-access period), time in hypoglycemia [sensor glucose <3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL)] was reduced by 50% compared to baseline [−0.70 ± 1.85/24 h (mean ± standard deviation); p = 0.0002]. Nocturnal hypoglycemia [2300 to 0600 hours, <3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL)] was reduced by 52%; p = 0.0002. There was no change in time in range [sensor glucose 3.9–10.0 mmol/L (70–180 mg/dL)]. SMBG testing fell from a mean of 3.9 (median 3.9) times/day at baseline to 0.2 (0.0), with an average frequency of sensor scanning of 7.1 (5.7) times/day at 12 months, and mean sensor utilization was 83.6 ± 13.8% (median 88.3%) during the open-access phase. During this 6-month extension period no device-related serious adverse events were reported. Nine participants reported 16 instances of device-related adverse events (e.g. infection, allergy) and 28 participants (20.1%) experienced 134 occurrences of anticipated skin symptoms/sensor-insertion events expected with device use (e.g. erythema, itching and rash).ConclusionThe use of flash glucose-sensing technology for glycemic management in individuals with type 2 diabetes treated by intensive insulin therapy over 12 months was associated with a sustained reduction in hypoglycemia and safely and effectively replaced SMBG.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02082184.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13300-017-0255-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Closed-loop insulin delivery systems are expected to become a standard treatment for patients with type 1 diabetes. We aimed to assess whether the Diabeloop Generation 1 (DBLG1) hybrid closed-loop artificial pancreas system improved glucose control compared with sensor-assisted pump therapy.Methods In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, crossover trial, we recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) with at least a 2 year history of type 1 diabetes, who had been treated with external insulin pump therapy for at least 6 months, had glycated haemoglobin (HbA 1c ) of 10% or less (86 mmol/mol), and preserved hypoglycaemia awareness. After a 2-week run-in period, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a web-based system in randomly permuted blocks of two, to receive insulin via the hybrid closed-loop system (DBLG1; using a machine-learning-based algorithm) or sensor-assisted pump therapy over 12 weeks of free living, followed by an 8-week washout period and then the other intervention for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was the proportion of time that the sensor glucose concentration was within the target range (3•9-10•0 mmol/L) during the 12 week study period. Efficacy analyses were done in the modified intention-totreat population, which included all randomly assigned patients who completed both 12 week treatment periods. Safety analyses were done in all patients who were exposed to either of the two treatments at least once during the study. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02987556.

No abstract