Search

Aims/hypothesis: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of stand-alone intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) with or without a structured education programme and blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in adults with type 2 diabetes on multiple daily insulin injections (MDI). Methods: In this 24 week randomised open-label multicentre trial, adults with type 2 diabetes on intensive insulin therapy with HbA1c levels of 58–108 mmol/mol (7.5–12.0%) were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to isCGM with a structured education programme on adjusting insulin dose and timing according to graphical patterns in CGM (intervention group), isCGM with conventional education (control group 1) or BGM with conventional education (control group 2). Block randomisation was conducted by an independent statistician. Due to the nature of the intervention, blinding of participants and investigators was not possible. The primary outcome was change in HbA1c from baseline at 24 weeks, assessed using ANCOVA with the baseline value as a covariate. Results: A total of 159 individuals were randomised (n=53 for each group); 148 were included in the full analysis set, with 52 in the intervention group, 49 in control group 1 and 47 in control group 2. The mean (± SD) HbA1c level at baseline was 68.19±10.94 mmol/mol (8.39±1.00%). The least squares mean change (± SEM) from baseline HbA1c at 24 weeks was −10.96±1.35 mmol/mol (−1.00±0.12%) in the intervention group, −6.87±1.39 mmol/mol (−0.63±0.13%) in control group 1 (p=0.0367 vs intervention group) and −6.32±1.42 mmol/mol (−0.58±0.13%) in control group 2 (p=0.0193 vs intervention group). Adverse events occurred in 28.85% (15/52) of individuals in the intervention group, 26.42% (14/53) in control group 1 and 48.08% (25/52) in control group 2. Conclusions/interpretation: Stand-alone isCGM offers a greater reduction in HbA1c in adults with type 2 diabetes on MDI when education on the interpretation of graphical patterns in CGM is provided. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04926623. Funding: This study was supported by Daewoong Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Published 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. Methods: An 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. Results: A 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). Conclusion: The 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 Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02082184. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]