To analyze key indicators of metabolic control in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using real-time or intermittent scanning continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM/iscCGM) during real-life care, based on the German/Austrian/Swiss Prospective Diabetes Follow-up (DPV) registry.
Methods:
Cross-sectional analysis including 233 adults with T1D using CGM. We assessed CGM metrics by gender, age group (18 to <30 years vs. ≥30 years), insulin delivery method (multiple daily injections vs. continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII]) and sensor type (iscCGM vs. rtCGM), working days versus weekends, and daytime versus night-time using multivariable linear regression models (adjusted for demographic variables) or Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
Results:
Overall, 79/21% of T1D patients used iscCGM/rtCGM. Those aged ≥30 years spent more time in range (TIR [70–180 mg/dL] 54% vs. 49%) and hypoglycemic range <70 mg/dL (7% vs. 5%), less time in hyperglycemic range >180 mg/dL (38% vs. 46%) and had a lower glucose variability (coefficient of variation [CV] 36% vs. 37%) compared with adults aged <30 years. We found no significant differences between genders. Multivariable regression models revealed the highest Time In Range (TIR) and lowest time with sensor glucose >250 mg/dL, CV and daytime–night-time differences in those treated with CSII and rtCGM. Glucose profiles were slightly more favorable on working days.
Conclusions:
In our real-world data, rtCGM versus iscCGM was associated with a higher percentage of TIR and improved metabolic stability. Differences in ambulatory glucose profiles on working and weekend days may indicate lifestyle habits affecting glycemic stability. Real-life CGM results should be included in benchmarking reports in addition to hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and history of hypoglycemia.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbersJW, HermanWH, Pop-BusuiR, et al.: Effect of prior intensive insulin treatment during the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) on peripheral neuropathy in type 1 diabetes during the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) Study. Diabetes Care, 2010; 33:1090–1096.
2.
JovanovicL, SavasH, MehtaM, et al.: Frequent monitoring of A1C during pregnancy as a treatment tool to guide therapy. Diabetes Care, 2011; 34:53–54.
3.
HermannJM, MillerKM, HoferSE, et al: The Transatlantic HbA1c Gap: Differences in glycaemic control across the life-span between the US T1D Exchange and German/Austrian DPV registries. Diabet Med, 2020; 37; 848–855.
4.
American Diabetes Association: Glycemic Targets: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2020. Diabetes Care, 2020; 43(Suppl 1):S66–S76.
5.
Consensus Committee: Consensus statement on the worldwide standardization of the hemoglobin A1C measurement: the American Diabetes Association, European Association for the Study of Diabetes, International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, and the International Diabetes Federation. Diabetes Care, 2007; 30:2399–2400.
6.
WeiW, JiangJ, LouY, et al: Benchmarking insulin treatment persistence among patients with type 2 diabetes across different U.S. payer segments. J Manag Care Spec Pharm, 2017; 23:278–290.
7.
KohnertKD, HeinkeP, VogtL, et al: Utility of different glycemic control metrics for optimizing management of diabetes. World J Diabetes, 2015; 6:17–29.
8.
HirschIB: Glycemic variability: it's not just about A1C anymore!. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2005; 7:780–783.
9.
WeberC, SchnellO: The assessment of glycemic variability and its impact on diabetes-related complications: an overview. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2009; 11:623–633.
10.
MaiorinoMI, PetrizzoM, BellastellaG, et al: Continuous glucose monitoring for patients with type 1 diabetes on multiple daily injections of insulin: pros and cons. Endocrine, 2018; 59:62–65.
11.
MonnierL, ColetteC, WojtusciszynA, et al.: Toward defining the threshold between low and high glucose variability in diabetes. Diabetes Care, 2017; 40:832–838.
12.
GomezAM, Henao CarrilloDC, Munoz VelandiaOM: Devices for continuous monitoring of glucose: update in technology. Med Devices (Auckl), 2017; 10:215–224.
13.
BattelinoT, DanneT, BergenstalRM, et al: Clinical targets for continuous glucose monitoring data interpretation: Recommendations from the International Consensus on Time in Range. Diabetes Care, 2019; 42:1593–1603.
14.
MaynardG, SchnipperJL, MesslerJ, et al.: Design and implementation of a web-based reporting and benchmarking center for inpatient glucometrics. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2014; 8:630–640.
15.
BeckRW, BergenstalRM, ChengP, et al.: The relationship between time in range, hyperglycemia metrics, and HbA1c. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2019; 13(4):614–626.
16.
KargesB, SchwandtA, HeidtmannB, et al.: Association of insulin pump therapy versus insulin injection therapy with severe hypoglycemia, ketoacidosis, and glycemic control among children, adolescents, and young adults with type 1 diabetes. JAMA, 2017; 318:1358–1366.
17.
PattonSR, ClementsMA: Average daily risk range as a measure for clinical research and routine care. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2013; 7:1370–1375.
18.
KovatchevBP, OttoE, CoxD, et al.: Evaluation of a new measure of blood glucose variability in diabetes. Diabetes Care, 2006; 29:2433–2438.
19.
MonaghanM, YoungeTB, McCarterR, et al.: Average daily risk range (aDRR) in young children with type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2014; 8:70–73.
20.
ThomasA, ShinJ, JiangB, et al.: The development of new composite metrics for the comprehensive analytic and visual assessment of hypoglycemia using the Hypo-Triad. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2018; 12:69–75.
21.
BattelinoT, CongetI, OlsenB, et al.: The use and efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes treated with insulin pump therapy: a randomised controlled trial. Diabetologia, 2012; 55:3155–3162.
22.
BeckRW, RiddlesworthTD, RuedyKJ, et al.: Effect of initiating use of an insulin pump in adults with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily insulin injections and continuous glucose monitoring (DIAMOND): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol, 2017; 5:700–708.
23.
ReddyM, JugneeN, AnantharajaS, et al.: Switching from flash glucose monitoring to continuous glucose monitoring on hypoglycemia in adults with type 1 diabetes at high hypoglycemia risk: The Extension Phase of the I HART CGM Study. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2018; 20:751–757.
24.
ShermanRE, AndersonSA, Dal PanGJ, et al.: Real-World Evidence—What is it and What can it tell us?. N Engl J Med, 2016; 378:2293–2297.
25.
BenkhadraK, AlahdabF, TamhaneSU, et al.: Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily injections in individuals with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endocrine, 2017; 55:77–84.
26.
SoupalJ, PetruzelkovaL, FlekacM, 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.
27.
PalaL, DicembriniI, MannucciE: Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion vs modern multiple injection regimens in type 1 diabetes: an updated meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Acta Diabetol, 2019; 56:973–980.
28.
RubinRR, PeyrotM: Patient-reported outcomes and diabetes technology: a systematic review of the literature. Pediat Endocrinol Rev, 2010; 7Suppl 3:405–412.
29.
BlickeM, KornerU, NixonP, et al.: The relation between awareness of personal resources and metabolic control in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes, 2015; 16:454–461.
30.
ZoffmannV, VistisenD, Due-ChristensenM: A cross-sectional study of glycaemic control, complications and psychosocial functioning among 18- to 35-year-old adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med, 2014; 31:493–499.
31.
Ludwig-SeiboldCU, HolderM, RamiB, et al.: Continuous glucose monitoring in children, adolescents, and adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus: analysis from the prospective DPV diabetes documentation and quality management system from Germany and Austria. Pediatr Diabetes, 2012; 13:12–14.
32.
GimenezM, TannenAJ, ReddyM et al.: Revisiting the Relationships Between Measures of Glycemic Control and Hypoglycemia in Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data Sets. Diabetes Care, 2018; 41:326–332.
33.
GómezAM, HenaoDC, Imitola MaderoA, et al.: Defining high glycemic variability in type 1 diabetes: Comparison of multiple indexes to identify patients at risk of hypoglycemia. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2019; 21:430–439.
34.
OliverN, GimenezM, CalhounP, et al.: Continuous glucose monitoring in people with type 1 diabetes on multiple-dose injection therapy: The relationship between glycemic control and hypoglycemia. Diabetes Care, 2020; 43:53–58.
35.
ÓlafsdóttirAF, PolonskyW, BolinderJet al: 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). Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018; 20:274–284.
36.
El-LaboudiAH, GodslandIF, JohnstonDG, OliverNS: Measures of glycemic variability in type 1 diabetes and the effect of real-time continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2016; 18:806–812.
37.
AvariP, MoscardoV, JugneeN, et al.: Glycemic variability and hypoglycemic excursions with continuous glucose monitoring compared to intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults with highest risk type 1 diabetes. J. Diabetes Sci Technol, 2020; 14:567–574.
38.
MianZ, HermayerKL, JenkinsA: Continuous glucose monitoring: review of an innovation in diabetes management. Am J Med Sci, 2019; 358:332–339.
39.
VigerskyRA, McMahonC: The relationship of hemoglobin A1C to time-in-range in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2019; 21:81–85.
40.
PetrieJR, PetersAL, BergenstalRM, et al.: Improving the Clinical Value and Utility of CGM Systems: Issues and Recommendations: A Joint Statement of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association Diabetes Technology Working Group. Diabetes Care. 2017; 40:1614–1621.
41.
JakubowiczD, LandauZ, TsameretS, et al.: Reduction in glycated hemoglobin and daily insulin dose alongside circadian clock upregulation in patients with type 2 diabetes consuming a three-meal diet: a randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Care, 2019; 42:2171–2180.
42.
YeL, GuW, ChenY, et al.: The impact of shift work on glycemic characteristics assessed by CGM and its association with metabolic indices in non-diabetic subjects. Acta Diabetol, 2020; 57:53–61.
43.
FabrisC, OzaslanB, BretonMD: Continuous glucose monitors and activity trackers to inform insulin dosing in type 1 diabetes: The University of Virginia Contribution. Sensors (Basel), 2019; 19. pii: E5386.
44.
Toghi-EshghiSR, YardleyJE: Morning (fasting) vs afternoon resistance exercise in individuals with type 1 diabetes: A randomized crossover study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2019; 104:5217–5224.
45.
BidondeJ, FagerlundBC, FrønsdalKB, et al.: FreeStyle Libre Flash Glucose Self-Monitoring System: A Single-Technology Assessment. NHPH; 2017 Aug. Report from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health No. 2017-07.
46.
FokkertMJ, DammanA, van DijkPR, et al.: Use of FreeStyle Libre Flash Monitor Register in the Netherlands (FLARE-NL1): Patient Experiences, Satisfaction, and Cost Analysis. Int J Endocrinol, 2019; 2019:4649303.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
