Lower Glycated Hemoglobin with Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring Than with Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring After 1 Year: The CORRIDA LIFE Study

Effect of switch from flash glucose monitoring to flash glucose monitoring with real-time alarms on hypoglycaemia in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus

We aimed to evaluate the utility of the FreeStyle Libre 2 device for reducing time below range level 1 and level 2 compared with the Freestyle Libre device (without alarms) in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus. We conducted longitudinal observational follow-up study of a cohort of 100 people with type 1 diabetes mellitus who had switched from FreeStyle Libre to FreeStyle Libre 2 as part of routine clinical practice. Three months after switching to FreeStyle Libre 2, compared with results with FreeStyle Libre, there were a significant improvements in time below range level 1 (p = 0.02) and level 2 (p <0.001), time in range (p <0.001), time above range level 1 (p = 0.002), glucose management indicator (p= 0.04) and mean glucose (p= 0.04) during follow-up. Furthermore there was a significant direct association between age and change in TIR with a coefficient of 0.23, and a significant inverse association between age and change in TAR-1 with a coefficient of 0.11. Switching to a flash glucose monitoring system with alarms improves time below range, time in range and coefficient of variation in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

Impact of short-term application of continuous glucose monitoring system(CGMS) on long-term glycemic profile in adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus: An open-label randomized control cross over study

AIMS

The use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring System (CGMS) improves glycemic parameters in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1D), but the cost is prohibitive. Here, we investigated the effect of short-term application of real-time and intermittently-scanned CGMS (rt and is-CGMS) in T1D individuals on change in HbA1c at the end of 3 months.

METHODS

T1D individuals were randomized into three groups in a ratio of 1:1:2 - Group A (rt-CGMS for 2 weeks initially, followed by is-CGMS for 2 weeks at 3 months), Group B (is-CGMS for 2 weeks initially followed by rt-CGMS for 2 weeks at 3 months) and Group C (only self-monitoring of blood glucose), respectively. HbA1c at baseline, 3, and 6 months were compared.

RESULTS

Out of a total 68 T1D patients, HbA1c decreased significantly in groups A and B at 6 months compared to the baseline, but not in group C. HbA1c was significantly lower in Group A compared to Group C at 3 and 6 months. Fructosamine levels significantly decreased in Group B before and after cross-over. Glycemic variability indices improved significantly after cross-over from is-CGMS to rt-CGMS.

CONCLUSION

Intermittent application of CGMS for 2 weeks improves short- and long-term blood glucose control in T1D.

Comparing the glycaemic outcomes between real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) among adults and children with type 1 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) versus intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) on key glycaemic metrics (co-primary outcomes HbA1c and time-in-range [TIR] 70-180 mg/dL, 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) among people with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODS

Medline, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials were searched. Inclusion criteria were RCTs; T1D populations of any age and insulin regimen; comparing any type of rtCGM with isCGM (only the first generation had been compared to date); and reporting the glycaemic outcomes. Glycaemic outcomes were extracted post-intervention and expressed as mean differences and 95% CIs between the two comparators. Results were pooled using a random-effect meta-analysis. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB2 tool. The quality of evidence was assessed by the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Five RCTs met the inclusion criteria (4 parallel and 1 crossover design; 4 with CGM use <8 weeks), involving 446 participants (354 adults; 92 children and adolescents). Overall, meta-analysis showed rtCGM compared to isCGM improved absolute TIR by +7.0% (95% CI: 5.8%-8.3%, I2  = 0%, p < 0.01) accompanied by a favorable effect on time-below-range <70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) - 1.7% (95%CI: -3.0% to -0.4%; p = 0.03). No differences were seen regarding HbA1c.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis highlights that for people with T1D, rtCGM confers benefits over isCGM primarily related to increased TIR, with improvements in hypo- and hyperglycaemia.

7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.