Multicentre, randomised, controlled study of the impact of continuous sub-cutaneous glucose monitoring (GlucoDay®) on glycaemic control in type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients

Cosson, E.; Hamo-Tchatchouang, E.; Dufaitre-Patouraux, L.; Attali, J. R.; Pariès, J.; Schaepelynck-Bélicar, P.

doi:10.1016/j.diabet.2009.02.006

Cited by 44 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The characteristics of included trials are summarized in Table 2. Two studies were of high quality [31,33] and other two studies were of low quality [32,34]. Among 4 trials, only one trial is multi-centered study [32].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on glucose control in diabetes

Poolsup

Suksomboon

Kyaw

2013

Diabetol Metab Syndr

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diabetes mellitus is a chronic disease that necessitates continuing treatment and patient self-care education. Monitoring of blood glucose to near normal level without hypoglycemia becomes a challenge in the management of diabetes. Although self monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) can provide daily monitoring of blood glucose level and help to adjust therapy, it cannot detect hypoglycemic unawareness and nocturnal hypoglycemia which occurred mostly in T1DM pediatrics. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) offers continuous glucose data every 5 minutes to adjust insulin therapy especially for T1DM patients and to monitor lifestyle intervention especially for T2DM patients by care providers or even patients themselves. The main objective of this study was to assess the effects of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on glycemic control in Type 1 diabetic pediatrics and Type 2 diabetic adults by collecting randomized controlled trials from MEDLINE (pubmed), SCOPUS, CINAHL, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library up to May 2013 and historical search through the reference lists of relevant articles. There are two types of CGM device: real-time CGM and retrospective CGM and both types of the device were included in the analysis. In T1DM pediatrics, CGM use was no more effective than SMBG in reducing HbA1c [mean difference – 0.13% (95% CI -0.38% to 0.11%,]. This effect was independent of HbA1c level at baseline. Subgroup analysis indicated that retrospective CGM was not superior to SMBG [mean difference -0.05% (95% CI -0.46% to 0.35%)]. In contrast, real-time CGM revealed better effect in lowering HbA1c level compared with SMBG [mean difference -0.18% (95% CI -0.35% to -0.02%, p = 0.02)]. In T2DM adults, significant reduction in HbA1c level was detected with CGM compared with SMBG [mean difference – 0.31% (95% CI -0.6% to -0.02%, p = 0.04)].This systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that real-time CGM can be more effective than SMBG in T1DM pediatrics, though retrospective CGM was not. CGM provided better glycemic control in T2DM adults compared with SMBG.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on glucose control in diabetes

Poolsup

Suksomboon

Kyaw

2013

Diabetol Metab Syndr

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other values have been published (3,11,23), but they defined hypoglycemic events or their durations differently. The mean durations of hypoglycemic events recorded by CGM were 60 minutes, similar to previously found times (11,3).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

High Incidence of Hypoglycemia in Stable Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Continuous Glucose Monitoring vs. Self-Monitored Blood Glucose. Observational Prospective Study

Pazos-Couselo¹,

García-López²,

González-Rodríguez³

et al. 2015

Canadian Journal of Diabetes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…21 Studies using CGM in insulin-treated type 2 diabetes patients are limited, which is surprising given that less than a fifth of these individuals reach target HbA 1c . 27 Cosson et al 28 conducted the first randomised multicentre study that involved 25 patients with type 2 diabetes, and have shown that CGM was associated with improved HbA 1c compared with SMBG after 3 months. However, CGM was limited to 48 h, and there was a large drop-out rate, making general applicability of the results uncertain.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensor and software use for the glycaemic management of insulin-treated type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients

Ajjan

Abougila

Bellary

et al. 2016

Diabetes and Vascular Disease Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lowering glucose levels, while avoiding hypoglycaemia, can be challenging in insulin-treated patients with diabetes. We evaluated the role of ambulatory glucose profile in optimising glycaemic control in this population. Insulin-treated patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes were recruited into a prospective, multicentre, 100-day study and randomised to control (n = 28) or intervention (n = 59) groups. The intervention group used ambulatory glucose profile, generated by continuous glucose monitoring, to assess daily glucose levels, whereas the controls relied on capillary glucose testing. Patients were reviewed at days 30 and 45 by the health care professional to adjust insulin therapy. Comparing first and last 2 weeks of the study, ambulatory glucose profile-monitored type 2 diabetes patients (n = 28) showed increased time in euglycaemia (mean ± standard deviation) by 1.4 ± 3.5 h/day (p = 0.0427) associated with reduction in HbA 1c from 77 ± 15 to 67 ± 13 mmol/ mol (p = 0.0002) without increased hypoglycaemia. Type 1 diabetes patients (n = 25) showed reduction in hypoglycaemia from 1.4 ± 1.7 to 0.8 ± 0.8 h/day (p = 0.0472) associated with a marginal HbA 1c decrease from 75 ± 10 to 72 ± 8 mmol/mol (p = 0.0508). Largely similar findings were observed comparing intervention and control groups at end of study. In conclusion, ambulatory glucose profile helps glycaemic management in insulin-treated diabetes patients by increasing time spent in euglycaemia and decreasing HbA 1c in type 2 diabetes patients, while reducing hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes patients.

show abstract

Multicentre, randomised, controlled study of the impact of continuous sub-cutaneous glucose monitoring (GlucoDay®) on glycaemic control in type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients

Cited by 44 publications

References 38 publications

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on glucose control in diabetes

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on glucose control in diabetes

High Incidence of Hypoglycemia in Stable Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Continuous Glucose Monitoring vs. Self-Monitored Blood Glucose. Observational Prospective Study

Sensor and software use for the glycaemic management of insulin-treated type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About