Effect Of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Research Articles

Utility of Real-Time and Retrospective Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

In the present study, we aimed to investigate the effects of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on blood glucose levels, body weight, blood pressure, and hypoglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus using a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry, and ClinicalTrials.gov. RCTs using CGM in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were then selected. Statistical analysis included calculation of the standardized mean difference (SMD) or risk ratio and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random effects model. After literature search, seven RCTs (669 patients) satisfied the eligibility criteria established herein and were included into the meta-analysis. Compared with the self-monitoring blood glucose group, the CGM group exhibited significantly lower HbA1c levels (SMD, −0.35; 95% CI, −0.59–−0.10; P = 0.006) and shorter time spent with hypoglycaemia (SMD, −0.42; 95% CI, −0.70–−0.13; P = 0.004). Conversely, no differences in body weight and blood pressure were observed between the groups. CGM in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus could reduce HbA1c levels and time spent with hypoglycaemia. However, because few RCTs were included in this present study and heterogeneity was also noted, care should be taken when interpreting the results.

The Effectiveness of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review of Literature and Meta-analysis.

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides glucose trend information that can be used to guide treatment and motivate patients with diabetes. Currently, the evidence on effectiveness of CGM in patients with type 2 diabetes is debatable. We aim to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize current evidence of effectiveness of CGM in adults with type 2 diabetes. Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched to include all studies that reported effectiveness of CGM in terms of HbA1c in adults aged 18 and older, with type 2 diabetes, on any treatment for diabetes. Heterogeneity (I2) was used to determine the variability between studies. All data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.3 software. Seven randomized controlled trials and three cohort studies, involving 1384 patients for real-time CGM (RT-CGM) and professional CGM (P-CGM) and 4902 patients for flash glucose monitoring (FGM), were included. RT-CGM and P-CGM were associated with a modest but statistically significant reduction in HbA1c of 0.20% (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.31 to -0.09) compared with control. Patients who received FGM had a nonsignificant reduction of 0.02% (95% CI -0.07 to 0.04) compared with control. The meta-analysis indicated a low heterogeneity between studies. Our analysis of current evidence suggests that RT-CGM and P-CGM are effective in improving HbA1c in adults with type 2 diabetes. Due to insufficient evidence, it is premature to form conclusions on the effectiveness of FGM. Future multicenter trials accessing the effectiveness of CGM as well as safety and cost-effectiveness may be necessary.

Does Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Restore Hypoglycemia Awareness in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) Who Previously Had Impaired Awareness of Hypoglycemia (IAH)?

IAH occurs in up to 1/3 of adults with T1D and it increases the risk of severe hypoglycemia (SH).Studies demonstrate that using CGM reduces the time spent in hypoglycemia (HG), but the effect of CGM on reversing IAH is not clear. We have enrolled many study subjects with T1D and IAH over the years and recently contacted them to determine how many continue to have IAH, how many have used CGM, and if there is a correlation between CGM use and restoration of HG awareness. Thirty six with T1D and IAH according to the Clarke/Cox questionnaire (CC) administered 2009-2015 were contacted to complete an online survey that included the CC, the Gold questionnaire, and questions about their diabetes. 12 M, 11 F responded. One had an islet cell transplant and was excluded. Median duration was 36 ± 12 years, mean age was 50 ± 12 years and the median HgB A1C was 6.8 ± 1%. Persistent IAH defined by both questionnaires was typical. Nineteen of 22 classified as IAH on the current survey reported severe HG over the last 6 mo. While there was a trend that showed consistent use of CGM was higher among people with no episodes of severe HG over the last 6 months this was not statistically significant. These observations show that persistent IAH is common in T1D. While the consistent use of CGM among our participants was high it did not translate into restoration of HG awareness in this population. Consistent use of CGM defined as more than 75% of the time over the last six monthsNo consistent use of CGMParticipants with persistent IAH (n = 18/22 using Gold)126Participants with persistent IAH (n = 19/22 using Cox)137Participants without persistent IAH (n= 4/22 using Gold)22Participants without persistent IAH (n= 3/22 using Cox)12Participants with severe HG in 6 months before survey (n = 19/22)118Participants without severe HG in 6 months before survey (n = 3/22)21 Disclosure K. Zekarias: None. A. Moheet: None. A. Kumar: None. E.R. Seaquist: Advisory Panel; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Consultant; Self; Eli Lilly and Company, Sanofi, Zucera, InfoMed, 360 consulting. Other Relationship; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc..

A Randomized Clinical Trial of the Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Nocturnal Hypoglycemia, Daytime Hypoglycemia, Glycemic Variability, and Hypoglycemia Confidence in Persons with Type 1 Diabetes Treated with Multiple Daily Insulin Injections (GOLD-3).

Background: To evaluate the effects of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on nocturnal and daytime hypoglycemia in persons with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI); we also evaluated factors related to differences in hypoglycemia confidence in this population.Methods: Evaluations were performed from the GOLD randomized trial, an open-label multicenter crossover randomized clinical trial (n = 161) over 69 weeks comparing CGM to self-measurement of blood glucose (SMBG) in persons with type 1 diabetes treated with MDI. Masked CGM and the hypoglycemia confidence questionnaire were used for evaluations.Results: Time with nocturnal hypoglycemia, glucose levels <70 mg/dL was reduced by 48% (10.2 vs. 19.6 min each night, P < 0.001) and glucose levels <54 mg/dL by 65%. (3.1 vs. 8.9 min, P < 0.001). For the corresponding glucose cutoffs, daytime hypoglycemia was reduced by 40% (29 vs. 49 min, P < 0.001) and 54% (8 vs. 18 min., P < 0.001), respectively. Compared with SMBG, CGM use improved hypoglycemia-related confidence in social situations (P = 0.016) and confidence in more broadly avoiding serious problems due to hypoglycemia (P = 0.0020). Persons also reported greater confidence in detecting and responding to decreasing blood glucose levels (thereby avoiding hypoglycemia) during CGM use (P = 0.0033) and indicated greater conviction that they could more freely live their lives despite the risk of hypoglycemia (P = 0.022).Conclusion: CGM reduced time in both nocturnal and daytime hypoglycemia in persons with type 1 diabetes treated with MDI and improved hypoglycemia-related confidence, especially in social situations, thus contributing to greater well-being and quality of life. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02092051.

Type 1 Diabetes in Children and Adolescents.

Type 1 Diabetes in Children and Adolescents.

Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Glycemic Control, Acute Admissions, and Quality of Life: A Real-World Study.

Randomized controlled trials evaluating real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) show improved glycemic control, but limited data are available on real-world use. To assess impact of RT-CGM in real-world settings on glycemic control, hospital admissions, work absenteeism, and quality of life (QOL). Prospective, observational, multicenter, cohort study. A total of 515 adults with T1D on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy starting in the Belgian RT-CGM reimbursement program. Initiation of RT-CGM reimbursement. Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) evolution from baseline to 12 months. Between September 1, 2014, and December 31, 2016, 515 adults entered the reimbursement system. Over this period, 417 (81%) patients used RT-CGM for at least 12 months. Baseline HbA1c was 7.7 ± 0.9% (61 ± 9.8 mmol/mol) and decreased to 7.4 ± 0.8% (57 ± 8.7 mmol/mol) at 12 months (P < 0.0001). Subjects who started RT-CGM because of insufficient glycemic control showed stronger decrease in HbA1c at 4, 8, and 12 months compared with patients who started because of hypoglycemia or pregnancy. In the year preceding reimbursement, 16% of patients were hospitalized for severe hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis in contrast to 4% (P < 0.0005) the following year, with decrease in admission days from 54 to 18 per 100 patient years (P < 0.0005). In the same period, work absenteeism decreased and QOL improved significantly, with strong decline in fear of hypoglycemia. Sensor-augmented pump therapy in patients with T1D followed in specialized centers improves HbA1c, fear of hypoglycemia, and QOL, whereas work absenteeism and admissions for acute diabetes complications decreased.

The Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Preventing Inpatient Hypoglycemia in General Wards: The Glucose Telemetry System.

Few studies have examined the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices in the general wards. The aim of this pilot study was to examine whether CGM readings can be successfully transmitted from the bedside to a central monitoring device in the nursing station, and whether a glucose telemetry system can prevent hypoglycemic events. We present pilot data on 5 consecutive insulin treated general medicine patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) whose glucose values were observed with CGM (DEXCOM) and the results were transmitted to a central nursing station monitoring system using DEXCOM Follow and Share 2 software. CGM alarms were set-up at glucose <85 mg/dl. Duration of CGM observation was 4.0 ± 1.6 days (mean ± SD). During CGM, the overall time spent within blood glucose (BG) target of 70-179 mg/dl was 64.68 ± 15% (mean ± SD), on hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dl) was 0.30% ± 0.39, and time spent on hyperglycemia (≥180 mg/dl) was 35.02% ± 15.5. Two patients had 3 actions of prevention of potential hypoglycemia (CGM BG <70 mg/dl for >20 minutes) captured by alarm. No patients had CGM glucose value <54 mg/dl. This pilot study indicates that the use of CGM values in hospitalized patients can be successfully transmitted to a monitoring device in the nursing station, improving patient surveillance in insulin treated patients with diabetes.

Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Glycemic Control in Adults Using Multiple Daily Insulin Injections

Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Glycemic Control in Adults Using Multiple Daily Insulin Injections

Continuous glucose monitoring in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes (CONCEPTT): a multicentre international randomised controlled trial

SummaryBackgroundPregnant women with type 1 diabetes are a high-risk population who are recommended to strive for optimal glucose control, but neonatal outcomes attributed to maternal hyperglycaemia remain suboptimal. Our aim was to examine the effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on maternal glucose control and obstetric and neonatal health outcomes.MethodsIn this multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial, we recruited women aged 18–40 years with type 1 diabetes for a minimum of 12 months who were receiving intensive insulin therapy. Participants were pregnant (≤13 weeks and 6 days' gestation) or planning pregnancy from 31 hospitals in Canada, England, Scotland, Spain, Italy, Ireland, and the USA. We ran two trials in parallel for pregnant participants and for participants planning pregnancy. In both trials, participants were randomly assigned to either CGM in addition to capillary glucose monitoring or capillary glucose monitoring alone. Randomisation was stratified by insulin delivery (pump or injections) and baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). The primary outcome was change in HbA1c from randomisation to 34 weeks' gestation in pregnant women and to 24 weeks or conception in women planning pregnancy, and was assessed in all randomised participants with baseline assessments. Secondary outcomes included obstetric and neonatal health outcomes, assessed with all available data without imputation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01788527.FindingsBetween March 25, 2013, and March 22, 2016, we randomly assigned 325 women (215 pregnant, 110 planning pregnancy) to capillary glucose monitoring with CGM (108 pregnant and 53 planning pregnancy) or without (107 pregnant and 57 planning pregnancy). We found a small difference in HbA1c in pregnant women using CGM (mean difference −0·19%; 95% CI −0·34 to −0·03; p=0·0207). Pregnant CGM users spent more time in target (68% vs 61%; p=0·0034) and less time hyperglycaemic (27% vs 32%; p=0·0279) than did pregnant control participants, with comparable severe hypoglycaemia episodes (18 CGM and 21 control) and time spent hypoglycaemic (3% vs 4%; p=0·10). Neonatal health outcomes were significantly improved, with lower incidence of large for gestational age (odds ratio 0·51, 95% CI 0·28 to 0·90; p=0·0210), fewer neonatal intensive care admissions lasting more than 24 h (0·48; 0·26 to 0·86; p=0·0157), fewer incidences of neonatal hypoglycaemia (0·45; 0·22 to 0·89; p=0·0250), and 1-day shorter length of hospital stay (p=0·0091). We found no apparent benefit of CGM in women planning pregnancy. Adverse events occurred in 51 (48%) of CGM participants and 43 (40%) of control participants in the pregnancy trial, and in 12 (27%) of CGM participants and 21 (37%) of control participants in the planning pregnancy trial. Serious adverse events occurred in 13 (6%) participants in the pregnancy trial (eight [7%] CGM, five [5%] control) and in three (3%) participants in the planning pregnancy trial (two [4%] CGM and one [2%] control). The most common adverse events were skin reactions occurring in 49 (48%) of 103 CGM participants and eight (8%) of 104 control participants during pregnancy and in 23 (44%) of 52 CGM participants and five (9%) of 57 control participants in the planning pregnancy trial. The most common serious adverse events were gastrointestinal (nausea and vomiting in four participants during pregnancy and three participants planning pregnancy).InterpretationUse of CGM during pregnancy in patients with type 1 diabetes is associated with improved neonatal outcomes, which are likely to be attributed to reduced exposure to maternal hyperglycaemia. CGM should be offered to all pregnant women with type 1 diabetes using intensive insulin therapy. This study is the first to indicate potential for improvements in non-glycaemic health outcomes from CGM use.FundingJuvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, Canadian Clinical Trials Network, and National Institute for Health Research.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes and Impaired Awareness of Hypoglycemia: Also Effective in Patients with Psychological Distress?

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether psychological distress modifies the effect of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and impaired awareness of hypoglycemia. Fifty-two patients with T1D and impaired awareness of hypoglycemia participated in an earlier reported randomized crossover trial with two 16-week intervention periods comparing CGM with self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). During the CGM phase, time spent in euglycemia (4-10 mmol/L), the primary outcome, was 9.6% higher compared with the SMBG phase (P < 0.0001). Psychological distress was operationalized as low emotional well-being (World Health Organization Well-being Index 5 [WHO-5] < 50), high diabetes-related distress (Problem Areas in Diabetes 5 [PAID-5] ≥ 8), and/or high fear of hypoglycemia (Hypoglycemia Fear Survey [HFS] Worry > mean HFS Worry score +1 standard deviation). Modifying effects were assessed by analyzing psychological distress score × intervention-interaction effects. Results showed that both the low emotional well-being group and normal emotional well-being group had equal glycemic outcomes during the CGM phase. High diabetes distress and elevated fear of hypoglycemia did not result in significant interaction effects for glycemic outcomes. This study demonstrated that CGM is equally effective in terms of glycemic improvements in high versus low distressed patients with T1D and impaired awareness of hypoglycemia.

Hypoglycemic Event Frequency and the Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Using Multiple Daily Insulin Injections.

IntroductionThe benefits of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in type 1 diabetes have been established among adults using insulin pumps. The DIAMOND randomized clinical trial examined the effectiveness of using CGM in improving glycemic control in participants using insulin injections. The frequency of hypoglycemic events in this trial has not been previously examined.MethodsAdults with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) with A1C values of 7.5% to 9.9% and not using CGM were randomized to adopt CGM (CGM group, n = 105) or continue with usual care (control group, n = 53). CGM data were collected from both groups at the beginning of the study and after 3 and 6 months. A hypoglycemic event was defined as a series of at least CGM values less than 3.0 mmol/L, separated by 20 min or more, with no intervening values of 3.0 mmol/L or more. Hypoglycemic event rates per 24 h were compared using a linear model adjusted for the baseline event rate per 24 h, baseline A1C, and site as a random effect.ResultsIn the CGM group, the median hypoglycemic event rate fell by 30% (0.23 per 24 h at baseline and 0.16 per 24 h at follow-up) while in the control group the rate was nearly unchanged (0.31 per 24 h at baseline and 0.30 per 24 h at follow-up; p value = 0.03).ConclusionIn the DIAMOND randomized controlled trial, participants in the CGM group experienced a greater reduction in hypoglycemic event rate than participants receiving usual care in the control group.Trial RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02282397.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring vs Conventional Therapy for Glycemic Control in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Treated With Multiple Daily Insulin Injections

The majority of individuals with type 1 diabetes do not meet recommended glycemic targets. To evaluate the effects of continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections. Open-label crossover randomized clinical trial conducted in 15 diabetes outpatient clinics in Sweden between February 24, 2014, and June 1, 2016 that included 161 individuals with type 1 diabetes and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of at least 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) treated with multiple daily insulin injections. Participants were randomized to receive treatment using a continuous glucose monitoring system or conventional treatment for 26 weeks, separated by a washout period of 17 weeks. Difference in HbA1c between weeks 26 and 69 for the 2 treatments. Adverse events including severe hypoglycemia were also studied. Among 161 randomized participants, mean age was 43.7 years, 45.3% were women, and mean HbA1c was 8.6% (70 mmol/mol). A total of 142 participants had follow-up data in both treatment periods. Mean HbA1c was 7.92% (63 mmol/mol) during continuous glucose monitoring use and 8.35% (68 mmol/mol) during conventional treatment (mean difference, -0.43% [95% CI, -0.57% to -0.29%] or -4.7 [-6.3 to -3.1 mmol/mol]; P < .001). Of 19 secondary end points comprising psychosocial and various glycemic measures, 6 met the hierarchical testing criteria of statistical significance, favoring continuous glucose monitoring compared with conventional treatment. Five patients in the conventional treatment group and 1 patient in the continuous glucose monitoring group had severe hypoglycemia. During washout when patients used conventional therapy, 7 patients had severe hypoglycemia. Among patients with inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections, the use of continuous glucose monitoring compared with conventional treatment for 26 weeks resulted in lower HbA1c. Further research is needed to assess clinical outcomes and longer-term adverse effects. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02092051.

Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Glycemic Control in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Using Insulin Injections

Previous clinical trials showing the benefit of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in the management of type 1 diabetes predominantly have included adults using insulin pumps, even though the majority of adults with type 1 diabetes administer insulin by injection. To determine the effectiveness of CGM in adults with type 1 diabetes treated with insulin injections. Randomized clinical trial conducted between October 2014 and May 2016 at 24 endocrinology practices in the United States that included 158 adults with type 1 diabetes who were using multiple daily insulin injections and had hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels of 7.5% to 9.9%. Random assignment 2:1 to CGM (n = 105) or usual care (control group; n = 53). Primary outcome measure was the difference in change in central-laboratory-measured HbA1c level from baseline to 24 weeks. There were 18 secondary or exploratory end points, of which 15 are reported in this article, including duration of hypoglycemia at less than 70 mg/dL, measured with CGM for 7 days at 12 and 24 weeks. Among the 158 randomized participants (mean age, 48 years [SD, 13]; 44% women; mean baseline HbA1c level, 8.6% [SD, 0.6%]; and median diabetes duration, 19 years [interquartile range, 10-31 years]), 155 (98%) completed the study. In the CGM group, 93% used CGM 6 d/wk or more in month 6. Mean HbA1c reduction from baseline was 1.1% at 12 weeks and 1.0% at 24 weeks in the CGM group and 0.5% and 0.4%, respectively, in the control group (repeated-measures model P < .001). At 24 weeks, the adjusted treatment-group difference in mean change in HbA1c level from baseline was -0.6% (95% CI, -0.8% to -0.3%; P < .001). Median duration of hypoglycemia at less than <70 mg/dL was 43 min/d (IQR, 27-69) in the CGM group vs 80 min/d (IQR, 36-111) in the control group (P = .002). Severe hypoglycemia events occurred in 2 participants in each group. Among adults with type 1 diabetes who used multiple daily insulin injections, the use of CGM compared with usual care resulted in a greater decrease in HbA1c level during 24 weeks. Further research is needed to assess longer-term effectiveness, as well as clinical outcomes and adverse effects. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02282397.

Effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in children, adolescents, and young adults with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes.

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on glycemic control in children, adolescents, and young adults ages 7-21 years with poorly controlled diabetes HbA1c 9.0% or more (74 mmol/mol IFCC). The primary outcome was improvement in HbA1c. The secondary outcome included self-reported hypoglycemia. This 12-week study used a prospective, one-group, pre- and posttest pre-experimental design with a convenience sample. The study used the Medtronic Guardian CGM with Enlite Sensor. Thirty-three subjects enrolled in the study. The mean age of the participants was 15.57 years, range was 11-20 years, 47.6% were male, and 52.4% were female. Twenty-one (63.6%) completed the final study visit. There was a clinically and statistically significant reduction of 1.46 (SD = 1.6711) (p = .001) in HbA1c at 12 weeks. Fifteen of the 21 participants (71.4%) had an HbA1c reduction of greater than 0.5%. The CGM monitor was worn a mean of 4.262 days a week. None of the subjects reported significant hypoglycemia while wearing the monitor. CGM was effective in improving glycemic control in this population with poorly controlled diabetes.

Abstracts from ATTD 2016 9th International Conference on Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes Milan, Italy-February 3-6, 2016.

Abstracts from ATTD 2016 9th International Conference on Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes Milan, Italy-February 3-6, 2016.

Systematic Review of the Effects of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Metabolic Control in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes

Rigorous metabolic control helps delay long term health complications in children with Type 1 diabetes (T1D). Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides valuable information regarding blood glucose levels that is not available with self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) alone.

Diabetes technology and the human factor.

The impressive progress achieved in recent years in diabetes technologies has made diabetes technological devices such as continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) a significant part of diabetes treatment. Many studies conducted in recent years emphasized the advantages of using these technologies. The concept of the “human factor” in diabetes technologies as discussed in this chapter has several different aspects. First, it can refer to the way patients are satisfied with the use of the device and whether it is perceived convenient or inconvenient. For example, is the device perceived as “user friendly” (easy to learn and to operate, comfortable, does not cause many hassles). Second, there is the issue of effectiveness of the technology as it relates to their day-to-day diabetes management. For example, there is an improvement in glycemic control when one diabetes treatment regimen is compared to another (i.e., CSII vs. multiple daily injections (MDI)). Those two fundamental aspects may have different meanings for different groups. For example, different age groups (toddlers, children, adolescents, young adults, adults, and older people) can see different advantages and disadvantages in technological devices. The feasibility and utility of technological devices also need to fit the environments in which they will be used, such as school, the work place, and/or home. Specific subgroups such as diabetic youth with eating disorders can have unique interactions with diabetes technologies. In addition, diabetes technologies can be used as a measurement device, providing more rich and accurate data about patients' self-care that can contribute to our understanding of concepts such as adherence and satisfaction, and they can provide measurement tools to assess how glycemic control can effect cognition and intelligence. The present chapter will review articles published in the last year that have studied some of these issues.

Effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in dialysis patients with diabetes: The DIALYDIAB pilot study

AimsThe DIALYDIAB trial addresses the contribution of iterative sequences of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on glucose control in dialysis patients with diabetes. Materials and methodsIn this before–after monocentric 12-week pilot study, dialysis patients with diabetes were monitored with self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) 3 times per day during a 6-week period followed by a 5-day CGM recording at 2-week interval during another 6-week period. SMBG and CGM profiles were remotely analyzed by a single diabetes expert who gave therapeutic counseling to dialysis physicians. ResultsFifteen patients who entered the study had a male/female ratio 8/7, age 60.9±14.8 years, BMI 29.9±7.8, diabetes duration 19.2±8.5 years and dialysis duration 6.5±6.9 years. Treatments were diet alone (20%) or diet plus insulin (80%). Mean CGM glucose level was 8.3±2.5mmol/l at baseline (T0), 8.2±1.6mmol/l at the end of the SMBG period (T1) (ns) and 7.7±1.6mmol/l at the end of the CGM period (T2) (p<0.05 vs T0). Glucose AUC>10mmol/l was 0.9±1.4mmol/l/day at T0 and decreased to 0.4±0.5 at T2 (p<0.05)) without change in glucose AUC<3.3mmol/l. Treatment adaptation was higher during the CGM period (1.4±1.0 and 2.1±0.9 treatment change at T1 and T2, respectively; p<0.05). ConclusionsIn patients with diabetes on chronic dialysis, iterative CGM monitoring was associated with more frequent treatment changes and finally, better glucose control, without increased risk of hypoglycemia.

Efficacy of real-time continuous glucose monitoring on glycaemic control and glucose variability in type 1 diabetic patients treated with either insulin pumps or multiple insulin injection therapy: a randomized controlled crossover trial.

The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of real-time continuous glucose monitoring in T1D patients treated with insulin pump therapy or multiple daily insulin therapy. Twenty adult patients (ten insulin pump therapy and ten multiple daily insulin) with poor glycaemic control (HbA1c > 8.0%) were randomized into two groups for 6 months: the continuous glucose monitoring arm (using real-time continuous glucose monitoring) and the SMBG arm. After 2 months of wash-out, the participants crossed over. The primary outcome was HbA1c reduction. The secondary outcomes were hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia risk assessment (area under the curve < 70 mg/dL/day and AUC > 200 mg/dL/day, respectively) and glucose variability. Fourteen patients (eight multiple daily insulin, six insulin pump therapy) used continuous glucose monitoring appropriately (at least 40% of the time). In these patients, the improvement in glycaemic control was more evident during the real-time continuous glucose monitoring period (7.76% ± 0.4 vs 8.54% ± 0.4, p < 0.05) than during the self-monitoring of blood glucose period (8.42% ± 0.4 vs 8.56% ± 0.5, p = 0.2). Better results with continuous glucose monitoring were observed in patients using multiple daily insulin with greater improvement in both glycaemic control (7.71% ± 0.2 vs 8.58% ± 0.2, p < 0.05) and glucose variability and with a marked reduction in the risk of both hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia. Appropriate use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring improved glycometabolic control in T1D patients. The effects of continuous glucose monitoring were more evident in patients under multiple daily insulin treatment, compared with insulin pump therapy. Glucose variability, in addition to glycaemic control, was improved in compliant diabetic patients.

Continuous glucose monitoring effects on maternal glycemic control and pregnancy outcomes in patients with gestational diabetes mellitus: a prospective cohort study.

Clinical evidence on the consequential effects of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on pregnancy outcomes in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is scarcely available. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of CGM on maternal glycemic control and pregnancy outcomes in patients with GDM . In total, 340 Chinese pregnant women with GDM were allocated to either the routine care group (n = 190) or the CGM group (n =150). This was a prospective cohort study in the Department of Obstetrics of GuangDong Women and Children Hospital in China. Recruitment started in April 2011 and stopped in August 2012. A 72-hour CGM system was used as a supplementary tool for glucose monitoring in the CGM group. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The parameters of glycemic variability included mean blood glucose, the SD of blood glucose, mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGEs), and the mean of daily differences. The maternal outcomes (preeclampsia and cesarean delivery) and composite neonatal outcomes were analyzed. The SD of blood glucose, MAGEs, and mean of daily differences values were significantly lower in the CGM group compared with those of the routine care group (P < .001). Subjects in the CGM group were at lower risk of preeclampsia and primary cesarean delivery compared with the routine care group (P < .05). The mean infant birth weight of women in the CGM group was lower than infants of women in the routine care group (P < .001). The MAGE was associated with birth weight (β = 0.196, P < .001), and it was an independent factor for preeclampsia (odds ratio, 3.66; 95% confidence interval 2.16-6.20) and composite neonatal outcome (odds ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.77). The use of supplementary CGM combined with routine antenatal care can improve the glycemic control and pregnancy outcomes of patients with GDM.