AimHypoglycaemia in Type 1 diabetes is associated with mortality and morbidity, especially where awareness of hypoglycaemia is impaired. Clinical pathways for access to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and flash glucose monitoring technologies are unclear. We assessed the impact of CGM and flash glucose monitoring in a high‐risk group of people with Type 1 diabetes.MethodsA randomized, non‐masked parallel group study was undertaken. Adults with Type 1 diabetes using a multiple‐dose insulin‐injection regimen with a Gold score of ≥ 4 or recent severe hypoglycaemia were recruited. Following 2 weeks of blinded CGM, they were randomly assigned to CGM (Dexcom G5) or flash glucose monitoring (Abbott Freestyle Libre) for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was the difference in time spent in hypoglycaemia (below 3.3 mmol/l) from baseline to endpoint with CGM versus flash glucose monitoring.ResultsSome 40 participants were randomized to CGM (n = 20) or flash glucose monitoring (n = 20). The participants (24 men, 16 women) had a median (IQR) age of 49.6 (37.5–63.5) years, duration of diabetes of 30.0 (21.0–36.5) years and HbA1c of 56 (48–63) mmol/mol [7.3 (6.5–7.8)%]. The baseline median percentage time < 3.3 mmol/l was 4.5% in the CGM group and 6.7% in the flash glucose monitoring. At the end‐point the percentage time < 3.3 mmol/l was 2.4%, and 6.8% respectively (median between group difference −4.3%, P = 0.006). Time spent in hypoglycaemia at all thresholds, and hypoglycaemia fear, were different between groups, favouring CGM.Conclusion
CGM more effectively reduces time spent in hypoglycaemia in people with Type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia compared with flash glucose monitoring. (Clinical Trial Registry No: NCT03028220)
Background: The I HART CGM study showed that real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) has greater beneficial impact on hypoglycemia than intermittent flash glucose monitoring (flash) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) at high risk. The impact of continuing RT-CGM or switching from flash to RT-CGM for another 8 weeks was then evaluated.Methods: Prospective randomized parallel group study with an extension phase. After a 2-week run-in with blinded CGM, participants were randomized to either RT-CGM or flash for 8 weeks. All participants were then given the option to continue with RT-CGM for another 8 weeks. Glycemic outcomes at 8 weeks are compared with the 16-week endpoint.Results: Forty adults with T1D on intensified multiple daily insulin injections and with impaired awareness of hypoglycemia or a recent episode of severe hypoglycemia were included (40% female, median [IQR] age 49.5 [37.5–63.5] years, diabetes duration 30.0 [21.0–36.5] years, HbA1c 56 [48–63] mmol/mol, and Gold Score 5 [4–5]), of whom 36 completed the final 16-week extension. There was a significant reduction in percentage time in hypoglycemia (<3.0 mmol/L) in the group switching from flash to RT-CGM (from 5.0 [3.7–8.6]% to 0.8 [0.4–1.9]%, P = 0.0001), whereas no change was observed in the RT-CGM group continuing with the additional 8 weeks of RT-CGM (1.3 [0.4–2.8] vs. 1.3 [0.8–2.5], P = 0.82). Time in target (3.9–10 mmol/L) increased in the flash group after switching to RT-CGM (60.0 [54.5–67.8] vs. 67.4 [56.3–72.4], P = 0.02) and remained the same in the RT-CGM group that continued with RT-CGM (65.9 [54.1–74.8] vs. 64.9 [49.2–73.9], P = 0.64).Conclusions: Our data suggest that switching from flash to RT-CGM has a significant beneficial impact on hypoglycemia outcomes and that continued use of RT-CGM maintains hypoglycemia risk benefit in this high-risk population.
Although subcutaneously implanted continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices have been shown to support diabetes self-management, their uptake remains low due to high costs and poor accuracy and precision arising from their invasiveness.
Background:The Patient Empowerment through Predictive Personalised Decision Support (PEPPER) system provides personalised bolus advice for people with Type 1 diabetes. The system incorporates an adaptive insulin recommender system (based on case-based reasoning, an artificial intelligence methodology), coupled with a safety system which includes predictive glucose alerts and alarms, predictive low-glucose suspend, personalised carbohydrate recommendations and dynamic bolus insulin constraint. We evaluated the safety and feasibility of the PEPPER system compared to a standard bolus calculator.
Methods:This was an open-labelled multicentre randomized controlled cross-over study. Following 4week run-in, participants were randomized to PEPPER/Control or Control/PEPPER in a 1:1 ratio for 12-weeks. Participants then crossed over after a wash-out period. The primary end-point was percentage time in range (TIR, 3.9mmol/L-10.0mmol/L (70-180mg/dL)). Secondary outcomes included glycaemic variability, quality of life, and outcomes on the safety system and insulin recommender.Results: 54 participants on multiple daily injections (MDI) or insulin pump completed the run-in period, making up the intention-to-treat analysis. Median (interquartile range) age was 41.5 (32.3-49.8) years, diabetes duration 21.0 (11.5-26.0) years and HbA1c 61.0 (58.0-66.1) mmol/mol. No significant difference was observed for percentage TIR between the PEPPER and Control groups (62.5 (52.1-67.8) % vs 58.4 (49.6-64.3) % respectively, p=0.27). For quality of life, participants reported higher perceived hypoglycaemia with the PEPPER system despite no objective difference in time spent in hypoglycaemia.
Conclusions:The PEPPER system was safe but did not change glycaemic outcomes, compared to control. There is wide scope for integrating PEPPER into routine diabetes management for pump and MDI users. Further studies are required to confirm overall effectiveness.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.