Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2018-06
Optimization of Insulin Regimen and Glucose Outcomes with Short-Term Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adult Type 1 Diabetes Patients with Suboptimal Control on Multiple Daily Injections: The Adult DIACCOR Study
The impact of a 7-day real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) on type 1 diabetes (T1D) management remains unclear in patients suboptimally controlled by multiple daily injections (MDI). The DIACCOR Study aimed to describe treatment decisions and glucose outcomes after a short-term RT-CGM sequence.
Patients and Methods:
This French multicenter longitudinal observational study included T1D patients with HbA1c >7.5% or history of severe hypoglycemia (SH) or recurrent documented hypoglycemia. A sensor was inserted at the inclusion visit, treatment changes were proposed by the investigator within 7–15 days (“INT” = MDI intensification, “CSII” = switch to continuous insulin infusion, or “ER” = educational reinforcement with no change in insulin regimen), and a 4-month follow-up visit (M4) was scheduled.
Results:
Four hundred fifty-nine patients were recruited by 155 diabetologists, 17.0% had SH history, and 24.2% had recurrent hypoglycemia. Baseline HbA1c was 8.34% ± 1.21% (>7.5% in 79.6%). Overall, 253 (64.4%), 64 (16.3%), and 76 patients (19.3%) were, respectively, included in the “INT,” “CSII,” and “ER” subgroups. The number of patients who experienced SH or recurrent hypoglycemia dropped dramatically (7.9% vs. 17.0% and 10.8% vs. 24.2%, respectively). The same trend was observed for ketoacidosis and ketosis (0.3% vs. 3.3% and 2.2% vs. 4.8%). At M4, HbA1c was significantly reduced in the whole cohort to 7.98% ± 1.01% (P < 0.0001). The adjusted differences in HbA1c level in the INT, CSII, and ER subgroups were, respectively, −0.32%, −0.69%, and −0.50% (P < 0.0001 for all).
Conclusion:
In real-life setting, a 1-week diagnostic RT-CGM supports appropriate treatment changes in patients with uncontrolled T1D resulting in better glucose control and less hypoglycemia.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT)/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) Research Group., LachinJM, WhiteNH, HainsworthDP, et al.Effect of intensive diabetes therapy on the progression of diabetic retinopathy in patients with type 1 diabetes: 18 years of follow-up in the DCCT/EDIC. Diabetes, 2015; 64:631–642.
2.
DCCT/EDIC research group. Effect of intensive diabetes treatment on albuminuria in type 1 diabetes: long-term follow-up of the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial and Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol, 2014; 2:793–800.
3.
MartinCL, AlbersJW, Pop-Busui R; DCCT/EDIC Research Group. Neuropathy and related findings in the diabetes control and complications trial/epidemiology of diabetes interventions and complications study. Diabetes Care, 2014; 37:31–38.
4.
Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT)/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) Study Research Group. Intensive diabetes treatment and cardiovascular outcomes in type 1 diabetes: the DCCT/EDIC study 30-year follow-up. Diabetes Care, 2016; 39:686–693.
5.
Writing Group for the DCCT/EDIC Research Group, OrchardTJ, NathanDM, et al.: Association between 7 years of intensive treatment of type 1 diabetes and long-term mortality. JAMA, 2015; 313:45–53.
6.
RodbardD: Continuous glucose monitoring: a review of recent studies demonstrating improved glycemic outcomes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2017; 19:S25–S37.
7.
GargSK, VoelmleMK, BeatsonCR, et al.: Use of continuous glucose monitoring in subjects with type 1 diabetes on multiple daily injections versus continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy: a prospective 6-month study. Diabetes Care, 2011; 34:574–579.
8.
ŠoupalJ, PetruželkováL, FlekačM, et al.: Comparison of different treatment modalities for type 1 diabetes, including sensor-augmented insulin regimens, in 52 weeks of follow-up: a COMISAIR study. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2016; 18:532–538.
9.
MehtaSN, AndersenHU, AbrahamsonMJ, et al.: Changes in HbA1c and weight following transition to continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2017; 11:83–86.
10.
HanaireH, Lassmann-VagueV, JeandidierN, et al.: Treatment of diabetes mellitus using an external insulin pump: the state of the art. Diabetes Metab, 2008; 34:401–423.
11.
ClementsM, MatulevicieneV, AttvallS, et al.: Predicting the effectiveness of insulin pump therapy on glycemic control in clinical practice: a retrospective study of patients with type 1 diabetes from 10 outpatient diabetes clinics in Sweden over 5 years. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2015; 17:21–28.
12.
WoodJR, MorelandEC, VolkeningLK, et al.: Durability of insulin pump use in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care, 2006; 29:2355–2360.
13.
RetnakaranR, DeVriesJH, Hanaire-BroutinH, et al.: Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily injections: modeling predicted benefits in relationship to baseline A1c. Diabetes Care, 2005; 28:1835–1836.
14.
JeitlerK, HorvathK, BergholdA, et al.: Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily insulin injections in patients with diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetologia, 2008; 51:941–951.
15.
EQuality1 Study Group—Evaluation of QUALITY of Life and Costs in Diabetes Type 1, NicolucciA, MaioneA, FranciosiM, et al.Quality of life and treatment satisfaction in adults with Type 1 diabetes: a comparison between continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and multiple daily injections. Diabet Med, 2008; 25:213–220.
16.
Lassmann-VagueV, ClavelS, GuerciB, et al.: Société francophone du diabète (ex ALFEDIAM). When to treat a diabetic patient using an external insulin pump. Expert consensus. Société francophone du diabète (ex ALFEDIAM) 2009. Diabetes Metab, 2010; 36:79–85.
17.
SeereinerS, NeeserK, WeberC, et al.: Attitudes towards insulin pump therapy among adolescents and young people. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2010; 12:89–94.
18.
WongJC, BoyleC, DiMeglioLA, et al.: T1D exchange clinic network. Evaluation of pump discontinuation and associated factors in the T1D exchange clinic registry. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2017; 11:224–232.
19.
De BlockC, Manuel-y-KeenoyB, Van GaalL: A review of current evidence with continuous glucose monitoring in patients with diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2008; 2:718–727.
20.
BolandE, MonsodT, DeluciaM, et al.: Limitations of conventional methods of self-monitoring of blood glucose: lessons learned from 3 days of continuous glucose sensing in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care, 2001; 24:1858–1862.
21.
KaufmanFR, GibsonLC, HalvorsonM, et al.: A pilot study of the continuous glucose monitoring system: clinical decisions and glycemic control after its use in pediatric type 1 diabetic subjects. Diabetes Care, 2001; 24:2030–2034.
22.
Gubitosi-KlugRA, BraffettBH, WhiteNH, et al.; Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT)/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) Research Group. Risk of severe hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes over 30 years of follow-up in the DCCT/EDIC study. Diabetes Care, 2017; 40:1010–1016.
23.
PicardS, HanaireH, Baillot-RudoniS, et al.: Evaluation of the adherence to continuous glucose monitoring in the management of type 1 diabetes patients on sensor-augmented pump therapy: the SENLOCOR study. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2016; 18:127–135.
PepperGM, SteinsapirJ, ReynoldsK: Effect of short-term iPRO continuous glucose monitoring on hemoglobin A1c levels in clinical practice. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2012; 14:654–657.
26.
LeinungM, NardacciE, PatelN, et al.: Benefits of short-term professional continuous glucose monitoring in clinical practice. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2013; 15:744–747.
27.
LindM, PolonskyW, HirschIB, et al.: Continuous glucose monitoring vs conventional therapy for glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes Treated with multiple daily insulin injections: the GOLD randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 2017; 317:379–387.
28.
BeckRW, RiddlesworthT, RuedyK, et al.; DIAMOND study Group. Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes using insulin injections: the DIAMOND randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 2017; 317:371–378.
29.
RyanM, GallanaghJ, LivingstoneMB, et al.: The prevalence of abnormal eating behaviour in a representative sample of the French diabetic population. Diabetes Metab, 2008; 34:581–586.
30.
TamborlaneWV, PfeifferKM, BrodM, et al.: Understanding bolus insulin dose timing: the characteristics and experiences of people with diabetes who take bolus insulin. Curr Med Res Opin, 2017; 33:639–645.
31.
WongJC, FosterNC, MaahsDM, et al.: T1D exchange clinic network. Real-time continuous glucose monitoring among participants in the T1D Exchange clinic registry. Diabetes Care, 2014; 37:2702–2709.
32.
PapargyriP, Ojeda RodríguezS, Corrales HernándezJJ, et al.: An observational 7-year study of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion for the treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus. Endocrinol Nutr, 2014; 61:141–146.
33.
HermanidesJ, NørgaardK, BruttomessoD, et al.: Sensor-augmented pump therapy lowers HbA(1c) in suboptimally controlled Type 1 diabetes; a randomized controlled trial. Diabet Med, 2011; 28:1158–1167.
34.
BergenstalRM, TamborlaneWV, AhmannA, et al.; STAR 3 Study Group. Effectiveness of sensor-augmented insulin-pump therapy in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med, 2010; 363:311–320.
35.
FloydB, ChandraP, HallS, et al.: Comparative analysis of the efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring and self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 1 diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2012; 6:1094–1102.
36.
KernW, HolsteinA, MoenninghoffC, et al.: Self-reported hypoglycaemic events in 2 430 patients with insulin-treated diabetes in the German sub-population of the HAT study. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes, 2017; 125:592–597.
37.
GoldsteinD, ChodickG, ShalevV, et al.: Use of healthcare services following severe hypoglycemia in patients with diabetes: analysis of real-world data. Diabetes Ther, 2016; 7:295–308.
38.
FrancS, DaoudiA, PochatA, et al.: Insulin-based strategies to prevent hypoglycaemia during and after exercise in adult patients with type 1 diabetes on pump therapy: the DIABRASPORT randomized study. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2015; 17:1150–1157.
39.
JoubertM, Baillot-RudoniS, CatargiB, et al.: Société Francophone du Diabète (SFD); Société Française d'Endocrinologie (SFE); EVAluation dans le Diabète des Implants ACtifs Group (EVADIAC). Indication, organization, practical implementation and interpretation guidelines for retrospective CGM recording: a French position statement. Diabetes Metab, 2015; 41:498–508.
40.
Schaepelynck-BélicarP, VagueP, SimoninG, et al.: Improved metabolic control in diabetic adolescents using the continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS). Diabetes Metab, 2003; 29:608–612.
41.
BolinderJ, AntunaR, Geelhoed-DuijvestijnP, et al.: Novel glucose sensing technology and hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, non-masked, randomised control-trial. Lancet, 2016; 388:2254–2263.
